"I'm on your side and I won't raise taxes"

[weazel]

If he was interested in Americas best interests he sure as hell wouldn't be bleating the repetative tune he's so fond of.

I believe that change is coming....and it won't result from so called "conservative" or "liberal" agendas....it will happen in spite of both.

Originally posted by Kieran
C'mon Weazel, you don't think voting for people that want to socialize medicine and redistribute wealth aren't selling out just as badly? Why do blacks vote as a block nearly every election, hmm? Everybody looks out for their own interests.

[Kieran]

Who is "he"? What is there to throw in my face? I'm not taking sides, you understand, I'm stating a fundamental truth about people and American voters- they all vote for those that will do what they want, and the politicos pander to them. Some politicos are a bit more brazen about it than others.

We all want more money in our pockets, it is only a difference of opinion as to how that happens. I do believe there is something obviously true to the argument those paying the most taxes should see the most in return from a rebate. I think DMF has come closest to convincing me there is an argument to putting more money in the hands of those that don't pay much in taxes- but it doesn't overcome the fact it is merely a handout sponsored on the backs of those that pay more. The economy needs us to have money so that we can make those purchases that keeps us all in jobs. Will taxing us more give us that, or will taxing us less allow us to keep more and therefore invest/spend it? Let me see...

Let me be more direct- who has more to benefit from a large poor class, Dems or Repubs? The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent; the power base of the Dems is supporting disfranchised people that are abused by employers, and those that live below the state-defined "poverty level". Given this, the stereotypical Dem has more to gain today by a tanking economy that raises the hue and cry of the lower class, and grows the base of people willing to vote themselves entitlements. Blammo, you now have the noble Democratic voters selling themselves out to get what they want.

No big difference from where I sit.

[Kieran]

Ah, sorry, "he" is Rip, and I agree. Sorry about the confusion, totally my bad.

[weazel]

"The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent"

That  common "people" don't do worth a damn under trickle down voodoo economics the so called " conservative" politicians ram down their throats everytime they take office?

The rich get richer, the less well off be damned....

Fable of the 20th Century:

George "Chimpy" Bush..... modern day Robin Hood.

The truth behind the fable:

My good fellows, it's really a very simple concept.  We all know that there are hundreds of deer in the forest.

 Which means that the King, and all his men, can kill all the deer they want, any day of the week they want, and there will always be more.

So you see, there is absolutely no reason why the game laws should apply to any of these gentle born men, just as long as we do our job and make sure that the peasants are never allowed to kill a single deer.

   Anonymous Gamekeeper
        Sherwood Forest
           Washington

[Kieran]

Do you really mean to tell me you think it was Clinton that spurred the economy of the 90's? Really? You don't think the technological explosion that created new industries had a tad to do with it? In addition, you don't think the economy was on its way down by the end of Clinton's second term, due to the near maturation of the technological market and diminishing growth? Now I am not an economist by any means, but it seems the booming economy went hand in hand with the explosion of the home computer/Internet markets, and the resultant startups. That Clinton was in office was a matter of sheer luck, and his success can be more attributed to a Republican mindset of leaving the businesses alone (except for Microsoft) and reap the benefits of high employment that occurred by industries created by forces he had nothing to do with.

So... where do I have this wrong?

[weazel]

But I remember how much of a struggle it was to make ends meet during the 12 years that the so called "conservatives" held office compared to the 8 years Clinton was in office.

There must have been something being done wrong/right during those 20 years...ya think?

What I think is the governments of the past are no longer viable, and that the current elected government is a mere illusion.....nothing more than the ghost of a sentimentalized reality.

Democracy is dead.....Long Live King Chimpy!

[Kieran]

Hey, I was around in that time too. I don't deny that it was hard for some, but if you really want to get down to it, it was a recovery period by most economists' estimation... except for the recession during Bush Sr's term- and that on the heels of the (until then) longest peace time recovery in modern history.

In fact, if you really want to get down to it, the hard times you refer to had to be better than the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years. Yes, I remember those years, too. I remember "malaise". The Reagan/Bush Sr years don't even hold a candle to that, sorry to say. Am I to therefore say Carter screwed up the economy? Of course not. The oil crisis, the rise of OPEC, the insurgence of competitive foreign import economy cars... the reasons go on and on.

So... to be totally fair and in context, Reagan brought us out of the Carter years, right? And, if economic cycles are to be considered the norm, recessions are balancing actions that occur more-or-less in repeatable and predictable cycles. 8 relatively strong years and a short recession (I was around '88-'92) would be considered normal, even pretty good.

Now, push that all out of the way and get right to it- the economy has more to do with the interaction of our economy with foreign markets and domestic confidence than anything a president can do, correct? The president has the best chance to impact the market in the domestic arena of consumer confidence, or perhaps to suggest legislation for reform of some form or another, but that is about it. Carter- what'd he do? Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton? And Bush Jr?

Please, Toad or DMF (or anyone else), correct my recollection as you will.

Democracy is dead.....Long Live King Chimpy!

I guess I don't see the impetus for this comment or viewpoint.

[weazel]

"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"

Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?

Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.

[Holden McGroin]

Nixon and Ford just inherited Johnson's Great Society, and Viet Nam, so it's Johnson's fault.... But he inherited SE Asia from Kennedy,  but he inherited that from Eisenhower, who inherited the Truman doctorine.....  it's all George Washington's fault!

[Fatty]

I ran over a deer today.  Does that count?

[JB73]

Originally posted by weazel
"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"

Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?

Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.

you know your argument just answered about the economic boom of the "clinton" years.... reaping the benefits of the past 12 yrs of republician administration... hmmmmmm

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush Sr - Economy bad.
Clinton - Economy good.
Bush Jr - Economy bad.


Bush Sr - Crime bad.
Clinton - Crime good.
Bush Jr - Crime bad.

Thrawn - full of shat as usual.  Same old tired argument that completely overlooks economic trends.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by weazel
"The power base of the Repubs is a successful economy where people and corporations are more affluent"

That  common "people" don't do worth a damn under trickle down voodoo economics the so called " conservative" politicians ram down their throats everytime they take office?

nono... we all do better being taxed blind.  (tax cut = handout )

The less well off be-damned?  My vote is teach them to read... at least three letters..    J[/size] O[/size] B[/size]

[Kieran]

Weazel, if that's the best you've got, you don't have much.

I doubt you even read my reply. I didn't blame any president for the economy, nor did I give credit to any of them for good times. Right or wrong I believe the president and the economy are largely two separate issues.

Now you *could* possibly attempt to rebut with an intelligent discussion. Or you could continue like the last post- the Internet equivalent of pouring your tongue out at your monitor.

[Kieran]

Blah, blah, blah....It's all Jimmy Carters fault....
"the hard times of the second half of the 70's- the Carter years"

Gee....you dont suppose the mess he inherited from the criminal Nixon and retard Ford had anything to do with Americas "malaise" do you?

Keep grasping for straws, one of them *might* be strong enough to hold your argument up.

Sorry, can't pass posting the obvious...

Does it occur to you that you are attributing the economy of the late '70's to the administrations before, but you want to attribute the current economy to the current administration?

I don't think I am the one needing a bigger straw...