Conservatives

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

Please explain to me how supply side has been discredited.

Google search: Proof that supply-side is discredited

Top result: Link

Two New Reports Explore the Strange Allure of Supply-Side Economic Policies and the Overwhelming Evidence of Their Failure

Instead they have to do with government interference in the market. Telling banks to give loans to people who shouldn't have gotten loans.

This is a lie.

The more information that comes out, the more clear the picture is that the wrongdoing that caused the current crisis is almost entirely from *the financial industry* who did irresponsible things for short-term gains, enable by their successful lobbying of the right-wing government to NOT regulate them as much.

For example. just today I ran across the report that the FBI was saying *in 2004*, at the height of the Republicans' power, that there serious problems with loan fraud in 80% of the cases initiated *by the lenders*, not the borrowers. Indeed, the reports just publicized show that had the Bush administration had any basic diligence, it would have been able to intervene.

Lijnk

the FBI accurately described mortgage fraud as "epidemic"

nonprime lenders are overwhelmingly responsible for the epidemic

the fraud was so endemic that it would have been easy to spot if anyone looked

the lenders, the banks that created nonprime derivatives, the rating agencies, and the buyers all operated on a "don't ask; don't tell" policy

willful blindness was essential to originate, sell, pool and resell the loans

Also, every time supply side economics has been tried, every time!!, it has worked. JFK cut tax rates and it spurred economic growth, Reagan did it and started the long expansion in history, and when Bush cut tax rates the economy accelerated.

JFK cut the top tax rate *to 70 percent* - in a carefully timed move, not on the basis that cuttting the rate at any time is a good idea. Sure, let's set it at 70%.

Other 'tax cuts' were *tax borrowing* - of COURSE when you run up the national credit card and hand out the cash, it has a positive effect, if you ignore the debt.

"DUh". And that has nothing to do with it being a good idea when you include the effects of the debt (or, in theory, the spending cuts).

The only real debate about supply side economics is whether the increase in economic activity is enough to offset the decrease in tax rates, and that is a VERY hard question to answer.

Studies show that 22% of the tax cuts are returned from increased growth. Not 200%. Not 101%. 22%.

Finally, we tried the liberal way of fixing healthcare, education etc etc in the 60s with the great society and the result was the 70s which were just awful economically.

We had outstanding improvements in society from the JFK/LBJ policies. Nixon was in office for the downturn. You don't mention 'inconvenient facts' like the oil embargo, because you are not being honest, yet again, to try to 'win a debate at whatever cost to the truth'.

One of your problems is how you start out with a conclusion ("Supply side works") and then just cherry pick and misrepresent facts to try to argue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

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.

Reagan and the Bush clan have very little in common. Ironic that you would take a shot as Reagan, given the number of political pundits now comparing Obama to Reagan.

Reagan and the Bush clan have a great deal in common. Both proclaimed supply-side praise, ran up big debt with similar spending priorities, had to pass big tax increases because of the big problems from their policies (except W, who needed to but didn't and our country is paying the price).

Coincidentally, the minimum number of political pundits who are idiots is the same number who are now comparing Reagan and Obama.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: marincounty
["Wasn't hard to beat Gore", uh, he got more votes than GWB and only lost because of the Republican Supreme Court.
Real conservatives still voted for Bush. And this RINO stuff is crap and needs to stop.
Tax cuts for the rich, excessive military spending, deficit spending, fear tactics, demonizing of the left, foreign adventures, all are hallmarks of the Republican party, so I would say GWB is not a RINO, but a TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

The NY Times and other libs that went though votes/chads etc said Gore lost anyway - which is why they stopped harping on it . I agree the RINO stuff must stop - we need real conservatives. Even Obama ran mimicking a conservative with his endless tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts promises and phony calculators all over the net. Now he flushed the economy down the potty like Chavez.

Butterbean told a bald-faced lie. The media consortium sponsored an independant body to recount the votes and banned the organization from stating its results.

The results in fact showed *Gore Won* in every relevant method of recounting. The media companies then created some irrelevant methods of counting in which Bush won.

Some of the media reported the results accuraely; others falsely put headlines of 'Bush wins recount', with the facts saying otherwise deep in the story.

The MSM wasn't in the mood in the weeks after 9/11 to tell the public that the President with his new 90% approval rating had lost the election.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: marincounty
["Wasn't hard to beat Gore", uh, he got more votes than GWB and only lost because of the Republican Supreme Court.
Real conservatives still voted for Bush. And this RINO stuff is crap and needs to stop.
Tax cuts for the rich, excessive military spending, deficit spending, fear tactics, demonizing of the left, foreign adventures, all are hallmarks of the Republican party, so I would say GWB is not a RINO, but a TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

The NY Times and other libs that went though votes/chads etc said Gore lost anyway - which is why they stopped harping on it . I agree the RINO stuff must stop - we need real conservatives. Even Obama ran mimicking a conservative with his endless tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts promises and phony calculators all over the net. Now he flushed the economy down the potty like Chavez.

Butterbean told a bald-faced lie..

Hey learned that from his KGB masters.

 

[First]

Basically, a conservative, these days, means you want to start your own country. I say go for it. There's a nice, cold and quiet piece of land just north of Alaska.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Evan
Basically, a conservative, these days, means you want to start your own country. I say go for it. There's a nice, cold and quiet piece of land just north of Alaska.

From an email I got about how to divide america between conservatives and liberals and why I'd support a conservative/liberal succession and why liberals should think twice about it:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.

After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's, and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran , Palestine , and France and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors (that is practicing, Howard Dean) who will follow to your turf (sic). We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.

Since it often so offends you we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag. *

Would you agree to this?

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall*

*Law Student and an American*

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: marincounty
["Wasn't hard to beat Gore", uh, he got more votes than GWB and only lost because of the Republican Supreme Court.
Real conservatives still voted for Bush. And this RINO stuff is crap and needs to stop.
Tax cuts for the rich, excessive military spending, deficit spending, fear tactics, demonizing of the left, foreign adventures, all are hallmarks of the Republican party, so I would say GWB is not a RINO, but a TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

The NY Times and other libs that went though votes/chads etc said Gore lost anyway - which is why they stopped harping on it . I agree the RINO stuff must stop - we need real conservatives. Even Obama ran mimicking a conservative with his endless tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts promises and phony calculators all over the net. Now he flushed the economy down the potty like Chavez.

Butterbean told a bald-faced lie. The media consortium sponsored an independant body to recount the votes and banned the organization from stating its results.

The results in fact showed *Gore Won* in every relevant method of recounting. The media companies then created some irrelevant methods of counting in which Bush won.

Some of the media reported the results accuraely; others falsely put headlines of 'Bush wins recount', with the facts saying otherwise deep in the story.

The MSM wasn't in the mood in the weeks after 9/11 to tell the public that the President with his new 90% approval rating had lost the election.

Nope

"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote"

" A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11...931a96d747d918&ei=5070

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: tm37
GWB was not a conservative.conservatives know we need to spend money to fix the roads, but we should not be paying for failures of others.

I understand that at least he is trying and that is great. Trying is not enough to fix the problem. I had an instructor in high school who said some thing very profound.

"the worst thing we teach aour children is that if first you don't succeed try try again" He said that would should teach "iof at first you don't succeed, stop, look at what you are doing, is that the best thing?, now try again."

I am frustrated that because people live in an investment I must shoulder the loss they experenced in it. I am frustrated that the solution to get people back to work is create jobs in goverment. The solution to the automakers who, with the help of the unions, have run bussinesses into the ground because they were unable to adapt.

A conservative think that government should allow bussinesses to succeed AND FAIL. Failure is a part of the natural order.

GWb did not ignore them BUT he ran to the center with the FARM BILL, the BAILOUT. Now the dems are saying that Bushes Bail out did not work we need more. That would be like ordering a soup at a restraunt and when you get it declaring "that is awful!, Can I get some more?"

I believe in School reform that includes vouchers, and the ability for teacher to be rated and FIRED if needed. I believe that The private sector can do things more efficently than the public sector.

SO sayin that GWB proves consevative does not work shows you know very little. GWB spent money, alot of money, and tried to make everyone happy. As a conserative I am poffended that you would lay his fiscal policy on my feet and ask that I take the blame.

GWB is not a conservative? Then who were all of the idiots that voted for him?
It certainly wasn't liberal democrats. All of the conservatives lined up for him, donated money to him, and voted for him. Nice try.

Wait, you're claiming that GWB is a conservative simply because conservatives voted for him? That's gotta be the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. I guess Obama is a conservative too since a bunch of conservatives voted for him.

 

[First]

^ Funny, but what's really sad is that a lot of conservatives really believe that bit about health care. McCain even tried to downplay and insult Medicare in Florida during the campaign. Just insane stuff.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: wjgollatz

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
GWB was not a true conservative. Socially, perhaps in some aspects, but certainly not at all fiscally.

Sorry, but at the time he was called the 'dream candidate' for the conservatives, and the 'conservatives' certainly were united behind him over the democrats.

He might have been call the dream candidate for conservative, but he was not called a dream candidate BY conservatives.

As soon as Bush was touted as "compassionate conservative" real conservatives knew that meant RINO. It wasn't hard to beat Gore but GW made it close by not being conservative.

"Wasn't hard to beat Gore", uh, he got more votes than GWB and only lost because of the Republican Supreme Court.
Real conservatives still voted for Bush. And this RINO stuff is crap and needs to stop.
Tax cuts for the rich, excessive military spending, deficit spending, fear tactics, demonizing of the left, foreign adventures, all are hallmarks of the Republican party, so I would say GWB is not a RINO, but a TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

The NY Times and other libs that went though votes/chads etc said Gore lost anyway - which is why they stopped harping on it . I agree the RINO stuff must stop - we need real conservatives. Even Obama ran mimicking a conservative with his endless tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts promises and phony calculators all over the net. Now he flushed the economy down the potty like Chavez.

Damn that biggest bunch of right wing bullshit I have read in a while lol thx for making my day

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: wjgollatz

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
GWB was not a true conservative. Socially, perhaps in some aspects, but certainly not at all fiscally.

Sorry, but at the time he was called the 'dream candidate' for the conservatives, and the 'conservatives' certainly were united behind him over the democrats.

He might have been call the dream candidate for conservative, but he was not called a dream candidate BY conservatives.

As soon as Bush was touted as "compassionate conservative" real conservatives knew that meant RINO. It wasn't hard to beat Gore but GW made it close by not being conservative.

"Wasn't hard to beat Gore", uh, he got more votes than GWB and only lost because of the Republican Supreme Court.
Real conservatives still voted for Bush. And this RINO stuff is crap and needs to stop.
Tax cuts for the rich, excessive military spending, deficit spending, fear tactics, demonizing of the left, foreign adventures, all are hallmarks of the Republican party, so I would say GWB is not a RINO, but a TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

How can you type this stuff with a straight face? Right now, you have Obama and the Democrats giving the rich BILLIONS of dollars in the form of "stimulus" bill, HUGE deficit spending, fear tactics right on par with the Republicans fear tactics (OMG pass this bill TODAY or else we're all going to lose our jobs!!!!!), and of course we can't forget the constant demonizing of the right in this very thread.

What a bunch of whiny ass hypocrites, Republicans and Democrats, I'm glad I voted third party.

 

[winnar111]

There's nothing wrong with public education at all, other than it costs too much money.

Of course, the way we're headed, you can either work your ass off, cross the $200k barrier, and fall off the tax cliff, or work significantly less and collect handouts.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Evan
Basically, a conservative, these days, means you want to start your own country. I say go for it. There's a nice, cold and quiet piece of land just north of Alaska.

From an email I got about how to divide america between conservatives and liberals and why I'd support a conservative/liberal succession and why liberals should think twice about it:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.

After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's, and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran , Palestine , and France and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors (that is practicing, Howard Dean) who will follow to your turf (sic). We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.

Since it often so offends you we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag. *

Would you agree to this?

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall*

*Law Student and an American*

Are you seriously gloating about that fucking rubbish Email? I guess that explains a lot.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
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.

Then why do we collect more tax revenue as a % of GDP in the 200s than the 50s-80s?

 

[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.

 

[Ozoned]

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...

I did, Military. Of course, poor man didn't pay (any of) his fair share.

 

[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.

 

[Ausm]

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.

Hmm Interesting, so we should punish those kids of were they live which is no choice of their own? You sound like you should be in Congress. the GOP (GRAND OPPOSITION PARTY) votes all No's with no answers but keep falling back on tired rhetoric and outdated ideology that the American people (ones who have a brain) are totally fed up with.

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Ausm
Hmm Interesting, so we should punish those kids of were they live which is no choice of their own? You sound like you should be in Congress. the GOP (GRAND OPPOSITION PARTY) votes all No's with no answers but keep falling back on tired rhetoric and outdated ideology that the American people (ones who have a brain) are totally fed up with.

Giving them less funding isn't punishment; right now failing schools like Washington DC and Trenton NJ spend a lot more money than successful school districts.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: winnar111
There's nothing wrong with public education at all, other than it costs too much money.

Of course, the way we're headed, you can either work your ass off, cross the $200k barrier, and fall off the tax cliff, or work significantly less and collect handouts.

Again, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I mean, if you are so willing to flaunt the system, then by all means, earn 249k and get into that lower bracket. The higher tax bracket will suck for those that barely get into the cut-off, such as the 250kers, but at the same time, the couple making 400k or 500k will still take home much more money after paying taxes than the 249ker paying in the lower tax bracket.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.

After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's, and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran , Palestine , and France and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors (that is practicing, Howard Dean) who will follow to your turf (sic). We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.

Since it often so offends you we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag. *

Would you agree to this?

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall*

*Law Student and an American*

Well, if you want to divide the country along those sorts of lines, then the conservative states (eg the red ones) will be immeasurably poor in comparison to the blue states. And honestly, most of those talking points are stupid. Military is conservative based? Really? Explain then why most of the conservative politicians actively avoided duty in Vietnam while the liberal of liberals, John Kerry, actually did a tour there. Conservatives love the military, as long as it's someone else doing the dying. The world is dumber for reading that letter.

Conservatives are simply yesterday's liberals. Where are the true conservatives, the ones that keep women in their place, keep coloreds in their place and only allow the landed gentry to have any power? Just about the only issue that the conservatives actually have is fiscal responsiblity, but even that's trumped because Clinton was the last president that actually balanced the budget. 46 of the 50 states are running deficits, so it's not just blue states that are hurting for money.



Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not a liberal person at all. I'd say I veer more towards the center on most issues. Most conservatives have not offered a realistic approach to the problems facing America. It's either "out-source to the private sector" or "tax cuts".

 

[Starbuck1975]

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

Kind of like being for a war before you were against it, huh.

Reagan and the Bush clan have a great deal in common. Both proclaimed supply-side praise, ran up big debt with similar spending priorities, had to pass big tax increases because of the big problems from their policies (except W, who needed to but didn't and our country is paying the price).

Yet historians typically throw praise on Reagan and do not look favorably upon either Bush. Economic policy is just one facet of a President, and there are more parallels between Obama and Reagan than Reagan and the Bush clan.

Coincidentally, the minimum number of political pundits who are idiots is the same number who are now comparing Reagan and Obama.

These comparisons are coming from the left, not the right...the same cheerleaders who facilitated Obama's rise to power...surely, Obama proponents in the media are not idiots.

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: winnar111
There's nothing wrong with public education at all, other than it costs too much money.

Of course, the way we're headed, you can either work your ass off, cross the $200k barrier, and fall off the tax cliff, or work significantly less and collect handouts.

Again, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I mean, if you are so willing to flaunt the system, then by all means, earn 249k and get into that lower bracket. The higher tax bracket will suck for those that barely get into the cut-off, such as the 250kers, but at the same time, the couple making 400k or 500k will still take home much more money after paying taxes than the 249ker paying in the lower tax bracket.

Based on what, fed/state/local marginal tax rates and lost deductions are going to be well over $.50 on the dollar in most states.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: winnar111
There's nothing wrong with public education at all, other than it costs too much money.

Of course, the way we're headed, you can either work your ass off, cross the $200k barrier, and fall off the tax cliff, or work significantly less and collect handouts.

Again, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I mean, if you are so willing to flaunt the system, then by all means, earn 249k and get into that lower bracket. The higher tax bracket will suck for those that barely get into the cut-off, such as the 250kers, but at the same time, the couple making 400k or 500k will still take home much more money after paying taxes than the 249ker paying in the lower tax bracket.

Based on what, fed/state/local marginal tax rates and lost deductions are going to be well over $.50 on the dollar in most states.

You've got to source that shit dude. Everything that's being said about the tax hikes for the 250kers is that they will pay no more than what they did prior to Bush's tax cuts.