The Neo-Con plan to bankrupt America to end government spending, entitlements, the welfare state etc....

[techs]

I wonder why the Neo-Cons and thier Republican lackeys believe that by spending wildly they will bring on an economic crisis that will REDUCE governments role in the economy and that people will change their attitudes about the governments role in helping individuals?

Clearly, history has shown us that when bleak economic times hit, people are MORE dependent on government aid. Haven't the Neo-Cons ever heard of the Great Depression? And look at a european country like England. When they were going bankrupt they first cut to the bare minimum everything BUT government aid to individuals. The military? Cut. Schools, roads, infrastructure? Cut. Things like health insurance and welfare were the LAST cut, and the first restored when times got better. And the result is an even greater dependence on the government to help out individuals during tough times. While the total spent on government programs is less because the government has less money, the percentage going to the things the Neo-Cons want to end, aid to individuals, actually DID better as a percentage.

And taxes go UP when the government can't borrow any more money and needs to provide services. Not Down.

Did England end universal, government paid health care? No. They just reduced spending until times were better. In fact, the move to allow private insurance back into England is a result of better economic times, not worse.
So I predict that when the economic crisis hits the U.S., if the Neo-Cons are successful, the result will be the OPPOSITE of what they are hoping for.

When 60 percent of people have no health care, and can't afford it, they will not think the problem is too much government spending. They will turn to the government for health care. And say goodbye to aircraft carriers, etc. The Neo-Cons will bring on the things they claim to hate most.

And unless the U.S. gets the kind of bailout the English did when they discovered North Sea oil, the U.S. will be using every penny it has for entitlement programs. So while the Neo-Cons will get a cut in the actual dollar amount in government spending, the proportion of government spending on entitlements will not only go up, but it will become a de facto right for Americans to get government aid.
One has to wonder if the Neo-Cons are stupid or ignorant? Or both?

Or if they have another reason to bankrupt America.....

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
I wonder why the Neo-Cons and thier Republican lackeys believe that by spending wildly they will bring on an economic crisis that will REDUCE governments role in the economy and that people will change their attitudes about the governments role in helping individuals?

I stopped reading here. Where do get the assumption that this is their goal, or plan?

Edit: Ok, I read the rest, and my assumption is that you need to do some more research on what neoconservatives believe.

Start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Then read this...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: techs
I wonder why the Neo-Cons and thier Republican lackeys believe that by spending wildly they will bring on an economic crisis that will REDUCE governments role in the economy and that people will change their attitudes about the governments role in helping individuals?

I stopped reading here. Where do get the assumption that this is their goal, or plan?

Edit: Ok, I read the rest, and my assumption is that you need to do some more research on what neoconservatives believe.

Start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Then read this...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

+1

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: techs
I wonder why the Neo-Cons and thier Republican lackeys believe that by spending wildly they will bring on an economic crisis that will REDUCE governments role in the economy and that people will change their attitudes about the governments role in helping individuals?

I stopped reading here. Where do get the assumption that this is their goal, or plan?

Edit: Ok, I read the rest, and my assumption is that you need to do some more research on what neoconservatives believe.

Start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Then read this...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

HaHa! Is that where you're getting your ideas about neo-conservatism?

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.pnac.info/

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/220.html

http://www.roadtopeace.org/index.php?itemid=340

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: techs

Or if they have another reason to bankrupt America.....

that is MY conspiracy theory

oft repeated here

good my viral seeds will spread .. it is not stupidity .. although they are really brainless theives

ANYWAY, yes . . Reagan's Grand Plan .. 16 years of Republican advantage to corporations and chipping away at our personal freedom

Bush and Chitty *kept their Campaign Promises*

to deliver to mega Corporations the USA for sale
5 cents on the dollar

isn't it time to impeach and jail the war criminals?
- of course, to be fair - they are making the decisions for "us - the stupid sheepies"

Too bad Nancy Palosi has no balls

 

[Jhhnn]

Your assumptions are flawed, techs. People will want to rely more on the govt in a downturn- but the objective of starving the beast, as it's called, is to make that impossible. For the neocons, the objective is to create that great economic divide with the vehicle of debt, and to end up on the right side of it by getting as rich and as diversified as possible in the meanwhile...

Could Argentinians depend on their govt when their economy collapsed? No. Current starve the beast advocates have the same in mind for this country...

Face it, who gets paid first- international bankers or a bunch of gimps, losers, and bluehairs? Who gets paid not at all if it turns into a big crunch scenario?

The only portion of the debt really subject to renegotiation is that held in the SS trust- and they'll offer a helluva deal- instead of paying $1B/yr, they'll pay $1M/yr for 1000 years- it'll be all the govt can afford, after paying the bankers...

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs
HaHa! Is that where you're getting your ideas about neo-conservatism?

You didn't answer my question of where you got your's. It's kinda stinky, so I have my theory on where you got it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is my theory...

liberals are so stupid (as shown by their theories) that if us Republicans actually did have a conspiracy theory they would never be able to figure it out.

 

[Lemon law]

Somewhat ironic is the Non Prof John contention of---Here is my theory...

liberals are so stupid (as shown by their theories) that if us Republicans actually did have a conspiracy theory they would never be able to figure it out.

When in actuality I have seen the idea floated quite a few times before. Which simply stated is that if conservatives can simply bankrupt the USA with extra domestic spending, soon the US will be so bankrupt, that there will be no government money left, and that will all have to go to military spending.

Somewhat of an offshoot of the project for a new American Century which has ended up being how to doom the USA as fast as possible.

So as usual its PJ who is deluded, he is so blinded to the fact that the people his ideas fool includes him and his very own blindness.

Once again, we call to you PJ, remove the wool from thy own eyes, and leave behind the dark side.

Can you not see the only person they are fooling is you. You are being raped and think you are outsmarting the rapist while being raped.

 

[bamacre]

Whatever it takes to get that damn Constitution thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is my theory...

liberals are so stupid (as shown by their theories) that if us Republicans actually did have a conspiracy theory they would never be able to figure it out.

LOL - now that's well put! Problem is, I think all this conspiracy theory nonsense is just that.

 

[Mxylplyx]

This thread was flamebaiting garbage from the start, like most of tech's threads.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
This thread was flamebaiting garbage from the start, like most of tech's threads.

no your's are

liberals are so stupid (as shown by their theories) that if us Republicans actually did have a conspiracy theory they would never be able to figure it out.

they have me now



You might as well, say goodbye to the Republican party; have a good-bye party now .. you just haven't seen "managed chaos" unleashed yet on McLame; just One *solid* dose of your own Viral poison will terminate them effectively, within 16 years - you will have to start over and create another better party that is not designed especially for Mega-Corporate Interests to plunder us - your thieves just need to pay and pay.

i want to see Hitlery debate McLame .. he won't be able to take the little bulldog .. watch his health suddenly fail; she can piss him off like no one else on planet earth. He WILL lose it in front of American and it will eat at him.

This is their best chance .. the Reps will try to minimize ANY debates with her - she needs to go after him and just blaze away until he cracks .. dirty and all. Personal attacks .. get her dogs to tear into his record.

Obama can't do this ,,, his is too "nice" and McLame will tear him apart - INSTEAD!


i *guarantee* there is no better lunatic-fringe Chaos analyst for the Democratic party
- if they are desperate to win the White House .. it is the Republicans own plan - improved on by me

see they do have hope .. now

 

[Nebor]

Neo-cons want people dependant on the government just like democrats do. It ultimately results in a lot of power in government hands. The only difference is how they plan to wield the power once they have it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Neo-cons want people dependant on the government just like democrats do. It ultimately results in a lot of power in government hands. The only difference is how they plan to wield the power once they have it.

Exactly.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Neo-cons want people dependant on the government just like democrats do. It ultimately results in a lot of power in government hands. The only difference is how they plan to wield the power once they have it.

it is so easy to toss out the apes

just wake up, go outside and pee on a bush .. it will come to you

 

[pstylesss]

I read the title and thought "hmm, this must be techs!". Looks like I was right.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I read the title and thought "hmm, this must be techs!". Looks like I was right.

If *i* was the OP .. after getting ALL the attention
- and no doubt the mods

i'd change the title

right now !
:clock:

maybe ..

Is there a "Plan" to Bankrupt America?
Topic Summary: will it have the opposite effect?

try it .. techs, i dare you .. the unexpected .. the flames will die if you want *serious* discussion .. that is the secret of my success in Video
:evil:

this COULD be a good discussion .. "as is" .. it will probably get locked .. too bad

 

[Moonbeam]

A corollary of self hate is that it causes us to realize our worst fears. We carry the seeds of our own doom because we are unconscious as to who is the real enemy.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A corollary of my own self hate is that it causes me to realize my worst fears. I carry the seeds of my own doom because i am unconscious as to who is my real enemy.

*fixed, dammit*

You are right; my own grandmother said it even though it directly applied to herself, making her a big hypocrite just like you:

You - Moonbeam - ARE *your* OWN worst enemy - although you come off as "enlightened" by your vision of a false cross - and you are the biggest hater i know on this forum that is really intelligent.

Please, do not include me in your *us* nonsense
- I resent it
:|

.. and i will continue to say so - it is YOUR problem and your solution that is poisoning you; don't preach BS to us - you remind me of Jehovah's Smug Witlesses - please, fix your OWN G-D life first - then come back and preach to me how YOU solved it .. not some "Easter Bunny's chocolate eggs of life" fantasy!

 

[Nebor]

Can we have a vote to restrict apoppin to the PC Gaming forum?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Can we have a vote to restrict apoppin to the PC Gaming forum?

I think it is now OK to tell everyone that i know here, your mama and your frustrated teachers decided to restrict you to 8th grade - again this year!

i understand no vote was even necessary; it was unanimous and you are now stuck in Jr High for another whole year

i am sorry but don't take your frustrations out on us



Edit:
. . . and if you want to know the WHOLE dirty truth

too bad







. . . the mods and general posters in *PC Gaming & Video* ...

.. asked me to come back here . . .
:Q


or else
:laugh:

You are now stuck with me .. i am in a hell of my own creation
- literally .. flames and all

. . . and i am further introducing all the little demons here to Chaos
:evil:

. . . sorry about that Chief, we are not in Control any longer,
KAOS has done it again, 99 . . .


Edit .. what was this about anyway?


i was *kidding* you know .. what you mean You can dish it out but you can't take it?
- that isn't fair "he hit me back, mommy"


oh yeah .. a decent topic with a flame bait title

Yes, i expect it to backfire

what is it about *neo-con* that you don't like?
it is a very old CON

 

[Nebor]

I hate your posting style. It's like a squirrel with ADD learned to type. It makes me want to jab forks in my eyes. I'd sooner read posts written in all caps.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your assumptions are flawed, techs. People will want to rely more on the govt in a downturn- but the objective of starving the beast, as it's called, is to make that impossible. For the neocons, the objective is to create that great economic divide with the vehicle of debt, and to end up on the right side of it by getting as rich and as diversified as possible in the meanwhile...

Could Argentinians depend on their govt when their economy collapsed? No. Current starve the beast advocates have the same in mind for this country...

Face it, who gets paid first- international bankers or a bunch of gimps, losers, and bluehairs? Who gets paid not at all if it turns into a big crunch scenario?

The only portion of the debt really subject to renegotiation is that held in the SS trust- and they'll offer a helluva deal- instead of paying $1B/yr, they'll pay $1M/yr for 1000 years- it'll be all the govt can afford, after paying the bankers...

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html

Once again, Jhhnn saves me having to type out a post.

Edit: instead of just saying that, here's an excerpt from a very good Paul Krugman column in 2003:

The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus ''incredibly positive news'' because it would put Congress in a ''fiscal straitjacket.''

Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the ''lucky ducky'' argument.

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these ''lucky duckies.'' (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their ''blood boiling with tax rage.''...

The astonishing political success of the antitax crusade has, more or less deliberately, set the United States up for a fiscal crisis. How we respond to that crisis will determine what kind of country we become.

If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.

In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.

But as Governor Riley of Alabama reminds us, that's a choice, not a necessity. The tax-cut crusade has created a situation in which something must give. But what gives -- whether we decide that the New Deal and the Great Society must go or that taxes aren't such a bad thing after all -- is up to us. The American people must decide what kind of a country we want to be.