We all need a translation machine to decipher Right Wing Talking Points!!

[wkmac]

To me it's would you rather jump off the empire state building or the sears tower? Who really cares there will not be much left when you are done. That being said by any reasonable measure the economy was much better for the sheeple under Bush than it has been under zero.

And as I said I understood your point but the simple fact is what appeared a good economy was a mask for a future train wreck. The wreck was going to happen regardless who won the 08' election. How Obama choose to handle it over say a McCain administration is open for debate although I'm not sure there would be that much difference.

Obama svks on so many levels to even count but saying you like Satan better than Lucifer because of a name is not much to go on IMO.

As for jumping from the ESB or Sears Tower, I'd rather use the elevator like most thinking people would but then neither the democrats or republicans gave us that option which is a point I think we both agree. The only trick in their bag is a good dose of inflation which the Obama's Krugman Clan has wanted all along of which the working middle class and poor will pay the largest share of this tax increase. Let's call it what it is, a fvking tax!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

The economy was dramaticaly better under Bush than it has been under zero.

...and even more so under Clinton.

 

[av8torntn]

...and even more so under Clinton.

How so? My assumption is that you have specific reasons for this statement and my curiosity is getting the better of me.

 

[av8torntn]

And as I said I understood your point but the simple fact is what appeared a good economy was a mask for a future train wreck.

I can agree with that but my post was a direct reply to the statement of how the economy was so much better now than three years ago. It is not by any reasonable measure. We have been heading in my opinion in the wrong direction for 75 years and each administration has only one answer to add more regulation and more government. Seems to me that someone would eventually stop saying that the answer is to give more freedom to government and decide to reverse course and demand less government and more freedom. Not that things are all bad as we have the wealthiest lower class in the world but at what cost? My opinion is that the cost has and will be to great.

 

[wkmac]

I can agree with that but my post was a direct reply to the statement of how the economy was so much better now than three years ago. It is not by any reasonable measure. We have been heading in my opinion in the wrong direction for 75 years and each administration has only one answer to add more regulation and more government. Seems to me that someone would eventually stop saying that the answer is to give more freedom to government and decide to reverse course and demand less government and more freedom. Not that things are all bad as we have the wealthiest lower class in the world but at what cost? My opinion is that the cost has and will be to great.

I'd go further than 75 years but regardless of time, point taken and agree. We will get less gov't because the current central planning model is just not sustainable by any measure. It's own weight now has even awoken many who championed for it so just on a support scale, those numbers are in fast decline and I speak of peoples on both sides of the 2 party state. I spoke in another thread of voices abandoning Obama and I think the same will happen in the GOP especially if Romney takes the party nod. Until Perry hit the trail, I thought it was a sure bet but the next few weeks might be interesting and not that Perry is any better either. This is why the astro-turf tea party is so important to keep the party troops in line and loyal. The left is correct about the Kochtopus Tea party movement but what the left shares with the Kochtopus is neither wants a true, free and radical thinking tea party that just might abandon the 2 party state.

As to America having the wealthiest lower class, I'm not willing to buy that completely on it's face. That's about the same argument IMO that an African slave is better off here than in the harsh life of the jungle. Just judging it all from that purely economic angle is not completely honest or a true complete reflection of liberty and freedom. If we're looking at the so-called wealth of the American poor in comparison to other peoples, I think you have to also give very serious consideration to the "Welfare State to the Rich." Now go back and begin to judge the economic prosperity of the American poor understanding the social safety net as a price floor to support aggregate demand. The poor become a feed fodder twisted like screws from both political sides regardless of the TV sets, cable access and number of cellphones they have.

Them bosses got us fighting on bothsides towards each other and no matter which side wins, they do too and neither one is a real free market.

 

[av8torntn]

As to America having the wealthiest lower class, I'm not willing to buy that completely on it's face. That's about the same argument IMO that an African slave is better off here than in the harsh life of the jungle. Just judging it all from that purely economic angle is not completely honest or a true complete reflection of liberty and freedom.. The poor become a feed fodder twisted like screws from both political sides regardless of the TV sets, cable access and number of cellphones they have.

Them bosses got us fighting on bothsides towards each other and no matter which side wins, they do too and neither one is a real free market.

Ok I'll bite in what nation are the poor better off than here?


I would never only think of flat screen TV's and cell phones as the sole measure of wealth. You can't disregard that but I was thinking along the lines of the types of things that monetary inflation brought like the national retirement plan, education,our national health care, and add to that the quality and level of housing those being the most dominant causes of our economic problems and the largest reasons for the printing of more and more money. I say that fully understanding your position that we spend more money waging war than on social programs but I just disagree in that I think most social programs provide the vehicle for the government to take money to wage war. There has been a massive transfer of wealth in this Country not only from the rich to the poor but also from the wealthy states to the poorer states and while not efficient some benifit does make it's way down to even the poorest.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Ok I'll bite in what nation are the poor better off than here?

Okay, so in which country are the disgustingly rich (20+ billion) better off, than here? of the "rest" of the >20 billion worldwide, which is somewhere near half of the world, how many exploited the U.S. capitalist system to earn it?

 

[trplnkl]

Ya AV8.

lets see...

10.7 trillion dollar national debt when he left office
7.8 unemployment
stock market crash
Housing crash
11 million jobs shipped overseas
bailouts in the trillions
2 unpaid wars
9/11 under his watch
6500 soldiers killed under his watch

Ya, your right, this is what america deserved.

Peace.

Nice talking points. Oh yea, the left doesn't use talking points. Yea right.

 

[wkmac]

Ok I'll bite in what nation are the poor better off than here?

There is no answer for that because you have to view it from an individual POV. You are viewing it from a collective or nationstate POV. And don't get defensive from that last point because we all do it. We've been conditioned to do it and it takes a long time and effort to break that habit. My life works for me. I think it is the best so it's obvious on it's face the best for everyone else. We need laws to mandate it. Sounds good but not true. It's true for you but not always true for others just as the lifestyle of others may not work for you. Therefore I don't submit to your point as empirical because there is no way for me to know what others need, want or choices they might make. It's that praxeology thingy if you will.

America was founded for all it's warts on the idea that the people would be free to in effect, find their own path. The "ism" they choose towards those ends were left up to them. Now the gov't has preferred "isms" and what happens when you don't let the market seek it's own balance and you mis-allocate resources to a favored side of the market seeking a self interest preferred outcome? Are the effects of mis-allocation being blamed on the wrong people? Who controls the decision makers? Who controls the marketplace and it resource allocation? Who sets law and policy? Why are the people furthest from this process the first ones to be blamed?

To quote Carson from the earlier linked piece:

The welfare state for the poor was actually created to solve the problems created by the welfare state for the rich. New Deal programs like Social Security and AFDC were promoted by “socialists” like GE head Gerard Swope and the Business Advisory Council in order to put a floor under aggregate demand. Government-enforced monopoly and unequal exchange redistribute wealth upward with a backhoe, and then the welfare state for the poor gives back some of it with a teaspoon.

And he also was dead on the money when he concluded:

If it weren’t for the welfare state for the rich, we wouldn’t need welfare for the poor.

c ya!

 

[The Other Side]

Nice talking points. Oh yea, the left doesn't use talking points. Yea right.

Trip,

those arent talking points, thats the official record. Learn the difference.

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

Yes, I like facts the best..............

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t DataIn the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

 

[The Other Side]

Yes, I like facts the best..............

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t DataIn the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

What does this mean to you?

Where was the country when he took over? Did you forget? 2 wars ongoing unpaid (part of the 2 trillion taken to pay for these) 10.7 trillion in debt from previous administration leaving the goverment in a deep hole and the worst recession since the great depression.

How do you focus on that number vs. the state of the union?

Is there a dispute on how much money has been spent since 2009?

I wonder how many people would have preferred a full depression if nothing had been done, as in Herbert Hoovers administration?

Peace.

 

[moreluck]

I enjoy viewing backpedaling !!
Oh, by the way, Since Obama has no record to run on, it's reported he'll run on "mean" this time. Will we be able to see the frustration on his face again?....or in his voice? Maybe the drama class at Colombia will take note!

 

[av8torntn]

Okay, so in which country are the disgustingly rich (20+ billion) better off, than here? of the "rest" of the >20 billion worldwide, which is somewhere near half of the world, how many exploited the U.S. capitalist system to earn it?

Saudi Arabia

Now your turn.

 

[av8torntn]

America was founded for all it's warts on the idea that the people would be free to in effect, find their own path. The "ism" they choose towards those ends were left up to them. Now the gov't has preferred "isms" and what happens when you don't let the market seek it's own balance and you mis-allocate resources to a favored side of the market seeking a self interest preferred outcome? Are the effects of mis-allocation being blamed on the wrong people? Who controls the decision makers? Who controls the marketplace and it resource allocation? Who sets law and policy? Why are the people furthest from this process the first ones to be blamed?

c ya!

I don't support the government taking money by force and giving it to the wealthy any more than I support the government taking money by force and giving it to the poor. I have always felt that the individual should be allowed to make his own plans free from government interference. To that end I would love to see the repeal of the 16th amendment to the Constitution. When the people give the government the right to treat people differently guess what they treat people differently.


Who controls market allocation? Governments try their best.

 

[trplnkl]

Trip,

those arent talking points, thats the official record. Learn the difference.

Peace.

Hmmm, why do the numbers on the "official record" change every time you post them? There is much more to the story than just the talking points you put out. Yes, they are nothing more than talking points without the story to go with the key words.

 

[wkmac]

I don't support the government taking money by force and giving it to the wealthy any more than I support the government taking money by force and giving it to the poor. I have always felt that the individual should be allowed to make his own plans free from government interference. To that end I would love to see the repeal of the 16th amendment to the Constitution. When the people give the government the right to treat people differently guess what they treat people differently.


Who controls market allocation? Governments try their best.

Agree!

 

[moreluck]

What does this mean to you?

Where was the country when he took over? Did you forget? 2 wars ongoing unpaid (part of the 2 trillion taken to pay for these) 10.7 trillion in debt from previous administration leaving the goverment in a deep hole and the worst recession since the great depression.

How do you focus on that number vs. the state of the union?

Is there a dispute on how much money has been spent since 2009?

I wonder how many people would have preferred a full depression if nothing had been done, as in Herbert Hoovers administration?

Peace.

Did I forget 2 wars????? Did O think adding a 3rd would make things better?????????????

 

[The Other Side]

Did I forget 2 wars????? Did O think adding a 3rd would make things better?????????????

Do the republicans think adding a 4th and 5th will also make things better??

Yeah, they are all talking war with SYRIA and IRAN. They could even go for the hat trick if you include CHINA as John Huntsman did in the last debate when he was asked if he would consider electronic spying on the US an act of war, to which he replied "YES I WOULD"

Get your facts straight for a change.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

Do the republicans think adding a 4th and 5th will also make things better??

Yeah, they are all talking war with SYRIA and IRAN. They could even go for the hat trick if you include CHINA as John Huntsman did in the last debate when he was asked if he would consider electronic spying on the US an act of war, to which he replied "YES I WOULD"

Get your facts straight for a change.

Peace.

Zer0 did add the thrid war..... maybe it's you that needs to get facts straight. are we at war with syria or iran or china?