Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Change you can believe in.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 495486" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>No it doesn't shock me no more than I was a big supporter of a democrat during that time period in one Congressman Larry McDonald. Now Larry to the democrats was like Ron Paul is to republicans and Larry and Ron were also friends. Met Ron through Larry in 1981' and been a fan ever since. One was a democrat and the other republican but they both maintained a philosophy I agreed with. Party made no difference and I dispised Newt Gingrich then as I do now for being a snake in the grass and never about true limited gov't principles. I don't support Ted Kennedy because IMO he lacks these priciples so why should a choose to support a very similar position because the person has an "R" after their name?</p><p> </p><p>Funny, some people tell me my bulldoggedness to philosophical principle is an admirable trait when I could go along with the crowd and benefit from it but then there are insecure herd followers who love to say otherwise and that I lack no convictions or principles (mostly because I won't choose from curtain #1 or curtain #2 and know the money is really in Monte's pocket) and I'm sure much of that is judged on the fact that my views aren't held by a large % of society and this is very true. </p><p> </p><p>I guess this makes people like Jesus total failures as they weren't performing to sold out tours either and the gov't eventually executed him for sedition and treason. Boy, where would we all be now had he "followed the herd" as some here would suggest I do now? Would to God we did a better job following his teachings if you want my opinion! I'm betting good money you'd agree with that last comment too?</p><p> </p><p>I see both parties now and the leadership of them as not true opposities but rather in truth the same side. Some people here are screaming about the $2.5 trillion in additional debt of Obama and that is true and a completely correct and fair point. Where I take issue with some here who make this point is the fact that while they now attack Obama's actions, while spending the last 8 years defending a political side that themselves doubled the national debt and vastly expanding the size and scope of gov't while proclaiming to the public to be for limited spending and limited gov't. </p><p> </p><p>Oh they are so quick to say "we had no choice after 9/11" but they ignore the point that during this same time period, tax revenues increased to nearly a $1 trillion in extra revenue 2003' to 2006' which was more than enough to cover all the war costs related to 9/11 and it's after effects. So where did all this new federal debt go? BTW: I've pointed out with gov't facts and links the 03' ro 06' tax revs increase in another thread if you care to look it up. </p><p> </p><p>Also, in 2002' we faced a recession partly from 9/11 but also the effects of the late 90's bubbles as these sometimes take a couple of years to begin to wash down but instead of letting this thing ride itself out and waste out the bad as this is what a reccession is and needs, Bush had his own <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/economic.stimulus/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">stimulus plan in 2003'</span></a> (reinflate the bubble) and a lot of this plan ended up creating things like the ownership society idea (actually refocus on already existing plans from previous adminstrations) that helped foster the real estate bubble but Bush was smart (qualified term understanding the context of Keynesian economics)in that he used gov't economic intervention to shift economic resources to places in the economy that would drive the highest tax rev. returns while ignoring the bubble effects that could result in busts later on. As I said earlier, 2003' we get a plan and from 03' to 06' gov't gets it's own stimulus but 5 years out from 03' we have the bust. </p><p> </p><p>Nixon/Ford had their own interventions with Nixon killing Bretton Woods with the closing of the gold window and remember the infamous "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) program? All that added up and then around 5 years later President Carter paid the piper. Carter's mistake like I think Obama is doing now is following bad advice and digging the hole deeper. This is just the same ole bad movie done over again and the plot doesn't change either. Clinton semed to break the mold but his was an issue of good timing. The peace dividend from the ending of the cold war was what helped Clinton look good for most of his years. </p><p> </p><p>But Democrats only screamed when in the minority under Bush not because they opposed the means of gaining the revenue but because they were the minority and therefore weren't able to control where the money is spent so they could insure the ability to buy votes. Oh you think I only picking on democrats? Really? Me? Ah, you should know me better by now. </p><p> </p><p>Lookie! Lookie! Lookie! what Big Daddy brought home for Christmas <span style="font-size: 9px">(pagan holiday). </span><span style="font-size: 10px">All we hear right now is the massive speading of democrats and in 03' republicans got their version but republicans also had their <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">own plan</span> </a>that in truth got morphed into Obama's plans. The republican plan on cost may not have been at the same level as Obama's but it also included many of the same infastructure projects and even money for public welfare programs. So what it comes down to is not a choice between socialism and private freedom/limited gov't, personal choice and local control but rather down to a choice of just how much of it we want. We already know that between the 2 parties we have socialist A or socialist B, the choice comes down to size. In this case, size does matter!</span></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>Republicans and democrats have switched roles and now republicans are on the outs and can't control where the gov't money is spent so therefore out come the masks of being limited gov't/fiscal responsible elected officials and I'll bet it's the same masks democrats were wearing back in the day when even Ted Kennedy was decrying Bush and republicans lack of fiscal responsibility. My guess is just before Obama came out to take the oath, all these liars and thieves of both parties met in the Capital building to exchange masks and here we go again with the next act of a greek tragedy! And we average folk are the real victims and forced to drink gov't hemlock!</p><p> </p><p>The question now becomes, will we wake up in time before it is too late to realize we are being played the fool?</p><p> </p><p>Enjoy your Sunday as I will.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 495486, member: 2189"] No it doesn't shock me no more than I was a big supporter of a democrat during that time period in one Congressman Larry McDonald. Now Larry to the democrats was like Ron Paul is to republicans and Larry and Ron were also friends. Met Ron through Larry in 1981' and been a fan ever since. One was a democrat and the other republican but they both maintained a philosophy I agreed with. Party made no difference and I dispised Newt Gingrich then as I do now for being a snake in the grass and never about true limited gov't principles. I don't support Ted Kennedy because IMO he lacks these priciples so why should a choose to support a very similar position because the person has an "R" after their name? Funny, some people tell me my bulldoggedness to philosophical principle is an admirable trait when I could go along with the crowd and benefit from it but then there are insecure herd followers who love to say otherwise and that I lack no convictions or principles (mostly because I won't choose from curtain #1 or curtain #2 and know the money is really in Monte's pocket) and I'm sure much of that is judged on the fact that my views aren't held by a large % of society and this is very true. I guess this makes people like Jesus total failures as they weren't performing to sold out tours either and the gov't eventually executed him for sedition and treason. Boy, where would we all be now had he "followed the herd" as some here would suggest I do now? Would to God we did a better job following his teachings if you want my opinion! I'm betting good money you'd agree with that last comment too? I see both parties now and the leadership of them as not true opposities but rather in truth the same side. Some people here are screaming about the $2.5 trillion in additional debt of Obama and that is true and a completely correct and fair point. Where I take issue with some here who make this point is the fact that while they now attack Obama's actions, while spending the last 8 years defending a political side that themselves doubled the national debt and vastly expanding the size and scope of gov't while proclaiming to the public to be for limited spending and limited gov't. Oh they are so quick to say "we had no choice after 9/11" but they ignore the point that during this same time period, tax revenues increased to nearly a $1 trillion in extra revenue 2003' to 2006' which was more than enough to cover all the war costs related to 9/11 and it's after effects. So where did all this new federal debt go? BTW: I've pointed out with gov't facts and links the 03' ro 06' tax revs increase in another thread if you care to look it up. Also, in 2002' we faced a recession partly from 9/11 but also the effects of the late 90's bubbles as these sometimes take a couple of years to begin to wash down but instead of letting this thing ride itself out and waste out the bad as this is what a reccession is and needs, Bush had his own [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/economic.stimulus/index.html"][COLOR=red]stimulus plan in 2003'[/COLOR][/URL] (reinflate the bubble) and a lot of this plan ended up creating things like the ownership society idea (actually refocus on already existing plans from previous adminstrations) that helped foster the real estate bubble but Bush was smart (qualified term understanding the context of Keynesian economics)in that he used gov't economic intervention to shift economic resources to places in the economy that would drive the highest tax rev. returns while ignoring the bubble effects that could result in busts later on. As I said earlier, 2003' we get a plan and from 03' to 06' gov't gets it's own stimulus but 5 years out from 03' we have the bust. Nixon/Ford had their own interventions with Nixon killing Bretton Woods with the closing of the gold window and remember the infamous "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) program? All that added up and then around 5 years later President Carter paid the piper. Carter's mistake like I think Obama is doing now is following bad advice and digging the hole deeper. This is just the same ole bad movie done over again and the plot doesn't change either. Clinton semed to break the mold but his was an issue of good timing. The peace dividend from the ending of the cold war was what helped Clinton look good for most of his years. But Democrats only screamed when in the minority under Bush not because they opposed the means of gaining the revenue but because they were the minority and therefore weren't able to control where the money is spent so they could insure the ability to buy votes. Oh you think I only picking on democrats? Really? Me? Ah, you should know me better by now. Lookie! Lookie! Lookie! what Big Daddy brought home for Christmas [SIZE=1](pagan holiday). [/SIZE][SIZE=2]All we hear right now is the massive speading of democrats and in 03' republicans got their version but republicans also had their [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html"][COLOR=red]own plan[/COLOR] [/URL]that in truth got morphed into Obama's plans. The republican plan on cost may not have been at the same level as Obama's but it also included many of the same infastructure projects and even money for public welfare programs. So what it comes down to is not a choice between socialism and private freedom/limited gov't, personal choice and local control but rather down to a choice of just how much of it we want. We already know that between the 2 parties we have socialist A or socialist B, the choice comes down to size. In this case, size does matter![/SIZE] :wink2: Republicans and democrats have switched roles and now republicans are on the outs and can't control where the gov't money is spent so therefore out come the masks of being limited gov't/fiscal responsible elected officials and I'll bet it's the same masks democrats were wearing back in the day when even Ted Kennedy was decrying Bush and republicans lack of fiscal responsibility. My guess is just before Obama came out to take the oath, all these liars and thieves of both parties met in the Capital building to exchange masks and here we go again with the next act of a greek tragedy! And we average folk are the real victims and forced to drink gov't hemlock! The question now becomes, will we wake up in time before it is too late to realize we are being played the fool? Enjoy your Sunday as I will. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Change you can believe in.
Top