As Expected, Obamanomics has Failed

[RangerM]

Flat rate at 30% of gross, with no loopholes, exemptions or credits whatsoever would be fine and would net a lot more than we're getting now.

I don't favor a flat tax, as in a flat income tax. I favor a consumption tax, where the rate is flat, but the revenues progressive. Best of both worlds, imo. No more taxing "work", and would encourage people to save.

We are paying a dear price for affordable goods, and the demand for labor to produce them is mostly in somebody else's country, not mine. The fact that the majority of Americans are too complacent to look past the end of their nose does not change that. Call me elitist. Most of my work is overseas. I see no inconsistency in that: Through my work, and the ways I choose to spend my money (I am putting my money where my mouth is), I am doing my best to even out the trade deficit - but I am pissing into the wind. People have to have their cheap electronics and running shoes from WalMart. Again, call me elitist.

I'm not going to call you anything, except in disagreement with me. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Walmart only helps other countries. I realize many (most?) of the products sold there are from China, but that's true for a lot of things. I recently bought a Dual brand car stereo from Best Buy, made in China by a brand started in the '20s in Germany. It was inexpensive, and fit my truck. (and it hasn't caught fire yet ) I don't know if you could buy a car stereo made in USA, but even if you can, many of the components won't be domestic.

 

When you walk into any store (including WalMart), is the greeter Chinese? Is the person who helped you commuting back to their country of origin after they get off work? Is the income they spend not spent in the U.S.? No, they aren't rocket scientists, making rocket scientist wages, so their access to certain goods is limited to what they can afford. If WalMart makes it more affordable for them to feed/clothe themselves, and MAYBE have an extra luxury from time to time, is that for you do decide it's wrong? Why?

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you see no inconsistency when your work is overseas (and apparently have no problem taking jobs away from the foreigners), but lament when your countrymen spend their money on products not made in the U.S.A. Or are you saying you are consistently free trade, so long as it's one-way (export) only?

I am glad that you've managed to improve your lot during this difficult period. I attribute that to smarts, character, and let's be honest; some luck too (certainly that's true in my case). The chief difference between us seems to be that I can imagine how easily it could all go South at any moment, through no fault or failing of my own, and I feel for those that find themselves in that situation - and I personally know a good many right now: these are people who pulled themselves through Bachelors degrees, then Masters; who worked hard at low paying internships, then passed demanding professional examinations; smart, good, hardworking people with so much to offer - and they are screwed. About half of my profession are unemployed. I watched men and women - some of them in their late 50s, never unemployed in their lives - carrying their boxes to the elevator with a hollow look in their eyes. The AIA estimates that half of them will not be back at work in their profession before the end of 2012. That is only a tiny vignette of 8,000,000 unemployed. I can only imagine how much more hosed are those with lesser financial and intellectual means. Their retirements are gone and their dreams are broken. It is simply wrong to characterize that as anything but a massive failure of our system (all the more so given the irony that those Godless Commie Chinese are the ones saving our bacon right now).

I wasn't saying my situation has improved during this recession, but making the point that it has improved since 2000 (the date you cited). Things are not all bad, even in a recession. Some always look to what bad can happen, without realizing what good can come from it. I'm not unaware how precarious (professional) life can be, but I also don't sit around and worry about it. It doesn't do a body good to constantly worry, and really doesn't do any good to worry about it and not prepare for it. I'm not saying I could lose my livelihood today (at 41) and expect to live out my days in comfort, but I can be proactive in my work/business to endear myself to my clients sufficiently that they believe they can't do without my services/presence. If I find myself without a means of supporting myself in my field; I must simply find another way. Sitting around worrying about it, no doing anything about it, and hoping to find a Godfather who'll take care of me will solve nothing at all.

 

Have you considered yourself lucky to keep your job as an architect, or could it be that you're just a better architect? Is it possible for people to recognize they are in a heavily competitive environment, or in an industry in decline (by virtue of lack of demand or increases in efficiency)?

 

It is not society's fault that some may find themselves incapable of competing in their chosen profession. My Dad found he could no longer compete in his. That's why (at 55) he changed professions. He went to Nursing School and got a job immediately after. You strike me as a lot like him (my Dad's a Democrat and shares many opinons with you), but in that way he isn't. He saw the writing on the wall, and did something to change it. Does that make him special or simply wise? (could be both, I guess)

 

If you sit around waiting for something bad to happen, and especially if you're looking for it, it usually will.

 

Booms and busts are endemic to our system. Well, smallpox used to be endemic too. We had the good sense to stamp it out. It is ludicrous to read grbeck's statements about how healthy our manufacturing sector is in the face of this harsh reality. "The prosperity we've had the last few years" was not prosperity at all. It was putting the womenfolk to work, borrowing, and selling out the legacy that our grandparents and great-grandparents built up with the sweat of their brow. That's different than prosperity, your individual success (which I laud you for) notwithstanding.

I'm not saying that my experience is the most common, but I also don't believe your observations are the norm, either. People must ultimately take control of themselves, if they are ever to have control of their destiny. When people "outsource" the control of their professional (or even personal) lives to another person, boss, or company, they can find themselves subject to the whim of those entities. People (individuals) are stronger and more capable than I think you give them credit for.

 

Of course the back of the discussion on taxes is the deficit spending issue. If we raised taxes to the same percentage of GDP that they were in 1970, we could wipe out the deficit in a few years. The graph you posted is great: identify the presidencies of Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, 'W', and Obama. It clearly shows that - up until the present time - Republicans have tended to be the deficit spenders (which has of course been pointed out many times). Oh but now we've all of a sudden got religion about deficit spending :rolleyes: . Don't get me wrong: I am all in favor of a balanced budget. Just roll back the Bush tax cuts (we all see how much good that medicine did for the economy), reinstate the inheritance tax.

Do you think part of the reason for the "deficit spending" was the fact that the last three Republican Presidents began their administrations in recession? I'm not saying they're spendthrifts, but that's an important point.

 

Rolling back the tax cuts will be coming shortly, but I must ask, what do you expect to accomplish by reinstating the inheritance tax? We've already seen how Government spends the money it confiscates, so what good does it do for you?

[Edstock]

http://nypress.com/article-21342-the-making-of-manhattans-elite-welfare-farmers.html

 

The Making of Manhattan's Elite Welfare Farmers

 

Want fiscal reform? Let's start by targeting the fattest farm subsidy checks—which are mailed to the richest New York ZIP codes.

[xr7g428]

http://nypress.com/article-21342-the-making-of-manhattans-elite-welfare-farmers.html

 

The Making of Manhattan's Elite Welfare Farmers

 

Want fiscal reform? Let's start by targeting the fattest farm subsidy checks—which are mailed to the richest New York ZIP codes.

 

Edstock, you are a pretty smart guy, are you telling us that this story meets your requirements for credibility?

[grbeck]

Flat rate at 30% of gross, with no loopholes, exemptions or credits whatsoever would be fine and would net a lot more than we're getting now.

We are paying a dear price for affordable goods, and the demand for labor to produce them is mostly in somebody else's country, not mine. The fact that the majority of Americans are too complacent to look past the end of their nose does not change that. Call me elitist.

 

I would call you an ostrich, given that you seem determined to ignore evidence contrary to your assertions by sticking your head in the sand (I could say that your head is stuck somewhere else, but I'll be nicer to you than you are to me).

 

The simple fact is that this limiting of government by Ronald Reagan exists largely in your imagination, along with the imaginations of his most fervent supporters. I have yet to see where government at any level has shrunk over the past 30 years.

 

You also ignore that many states and localities have enacted the policies that you support, and they have, over the long term, either failed outright, or brought about unintended consequences. For that matter, we tried protectionism in the 1930s, and it was a disaster not just for this country, but for Europe, too.

 

Plus, if I buy an American-made stereo, and it burns down my house, or a domestic car, and it's in the shop every other month, I would say that I'm paying a very dear price for basing my purchasing decisions on whether the product is made here.

 

Here's the deal - when you know as much as I do on various subjects - history, economics, finance - I'll join in support of laws and regulations that you obviously support (protectionism and higher taxes, for example), which will impact all of us, not just "the rich."

 

Until then, no dice. You're a LONG way from showing me exactly why I should allow the politicians you support to manage my life with more rules and regulations to recapture a past that exists largely in your imagination.

 

It is ludicrous to read grbeck's statements about how healthy our manufacturing sector is in the face of this harsh reality. "

 

What's ludicrous is your ignorance on this subject.

 

I'll break it down for you to make this easy:

 

1. Your original argument was that manufacturing is dying in this country.

 

2. I offered proof - from a Washington Post article - that manufacturing has remained a constant percentage of GDP over the years, and is not dying in this country. Your replied this was because the Bush Administration reclassified fast-food workers as being engaged in manufacturing, and I showed that this was a PROPOSAL (and, I agreed, it was a dumb one), and nothing more. It has had no impact on manufacturing statistics.

 

The prosperity we've had the last few years" was not prosperity at all. It was putting the womenfolk to work, borrowing, and selling out the legacy that our grandparents and great-grandparents built up with the sweat of their brow. That's different than prosperity, your individual success (which I laud you for) notwithstanding.

 

"Womenfolk" (maybe you should have called them "the little ladies") have always been a part of the workforce, and began entering in much greater numbers in the 1960s, long before Reagan was president. This idea was RESISTED by conservatives, and promoted by feminists and their supporters.

 

Now, if you are so concerned about deficits, and the purchase of our debt by the Chinese, please explain HOW you would cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the biggest drivers of federal spending, both now and in the future. (Cutting military expenditures will be sufficient to right the ship, no matter who fervently you believe it will be so. We aren't going to abolish the military, or return it to 1950s levels of appropriations.)

 

You can come to my office, and, over a nice cup of coffee, people who actually understand these issues (i.e., not members of the editorial staffs of Mother Jones or The Nation) will explain this to you in very great detail, with nice charts and graphs that make it all very easy to understand.

 

As for raising taxes - again, you keep dodging the example of California, which has enacted all of the policies you claim to support (high, progressive taxes on individuals; high taxes on business; strict environmental regulations; lavish social programs) and is a fiscal basket case. The state has levied high taxes, and they STILL aren't enough to support the spending by those who continually clamor for more government money. (For that matter, New Jersey, right next door to Pennsylvania, has the highest state and local tax burden in the nation, and it isn't in much better shape than California from a fiscal standpoint.)

 

The idea that if we had kept taxes at a certain level, we would not have deficits, is laughable, given that history has shown that, since the early 1970s, in the wake of the Great Society programs and the constant clamoring for more benefits for a greater number of people, government at ALL levels will spend every available dollar it can somehow get its hands on.

 

About half of my profession are unemployed. I watched men and women - some of them in their late 50s, never unemployed in their lives - carrying their boxes to the elevator with a hollow look in their eyes. The AIA estimates that half of them will not be back at work in their profession before the end of 2012. That is only a tiny vignette of 8,000,000 unemployed. I can only imagine how much more hosed are those with lesser financial and intellectual means. Their retirements are gone and their dreams are broken. It is simply wrong to characterize that as anything but a massive failure of our system (all the more so given the irony that those Godless Commie Chinese are the ones saving our bacon right now).

 

Maybe that's because people involved in designing buildings - i.e., real estate - would also suffer when a real estate bubble pops? I'm sorry that they lost their jobs, but I wonder how many of them were happy to ride the real estate bubble for all it was worth when it was inflating.

Edited July 7, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

The only question I have is do you and the people who say this have special "overseas" Walmarts by you? The ones I have seen have all the same products as any other store.

 

I'm baffled by this, too. K-Mart and Target have largely the same product lines. At least, the ones I shop at do.

[fmccap]

I'm baffled by this, too. K-Mart and Target have largely the same product lines. At least, the ones I shop at do.

So what would happen if Walmart just closed up shop tomorrow? I think sales would just go up at K-Mart and Target(or whatever the equivalent is in the area) of the same products. I don't really see any other change.

Edited July 8, 2010 by fmccap

[J-150]

Britain is said to be emulating what Canada did in the 90s.....Jelly, it won't be easy....but it'll be worth it.

 

 

 

What did Canada do in the 90's?

 

Paul Martin managed to balance the budget by downloading to the provinces and riding the low interest rates that Mulroney and Trudeau didn't have.

 

They didn't make the tough decisions. Still haven't IMO. Interest rates go up another couple of percent and will be in trouble again.

[suv_guy_19]

Cut to the bone.....

[Roadtrip]

So what would happen if Walmart just closed up shop tomorrow? I think sales would just go up at K-Mart and Target(or whatever the equivalent is in the area) of the same products. I don't really see any other change.

 

What would happen is prices would go up for consumers (in other words: inflation).

 

Walmart is the cost leader in its industry, mainly because of its innovative and highly efficient supply-chain management system and the fact that, because of its large market share, it can and does force its vendors to be more competitive. Target and especially K-Mart are eons behind Walmart in this regard.

 

In fact, if Walmart were to cease to exist tomorrow, Target and K-Mart would be far less inclined to be competitive themselves (in terms of costs), since Walmart would no longer be a competitive threat.

 

Consumers who would be hardest hit by those rising prices are lower- and middle-income consumers who are Walmart's core customer base. Those consumers are very much dependent on Walmart's "Every Day Low Cost" pricing strategy (I can't imagine why else they would shop there). Take those low costs away -- and introduce inflation -- and you strike at the gut of consumers who can least afford higher prices in an already-terrible economy.

 

And considering that Walmart is the largest private employer in North America, its early demise would introduce millions of additional people to the roles of the unemployed. Not good.

 

Other than that, we wouldn't see any other change.

 

And no, I don't work for Walmart -- I am a vendor; therefore, I hate Walmart.

[xr7g428]

I am a vendor; therefore, I hate Walmart.

 

LOL! Priceless. BTDT.

[Imawhosure]

Some of you people are unbelievable!!!! When was the last time you worked for a poor person unless you are some kind of social worker?

 

Just like YOU, the weathiest people want to get........well.........richer. Forget they have more money than you, just remember just like you, they want more. Unlike you, they have exhausted all their ability to do more as a person, and hire people taking a cut of what they do for their own investment.

 

QUESTION------->How many cars could Bill Ford build by himself? So what does he do? He hires YOU to build them, then sells them after paying your wages, benefits, etc, for a PROFIT. This is how it works! This is how jobs become reality. Screw the guy who makes jobs, you screw yourself. It is just that simple.

 

I do not understand some peoples thinking on here. They demand jobs, then demand the government screw the job creators, then moan when jobs dry up. They come up with ridiculous scenarios to legislate a way to stick it to them, then when they escape moan because they are not acting American, North American, or maybe Pan American; take your pick.

 

Unless you want to bring Hitler or Stalin back to life after they have assumed room temperature to force them to stay, this is what business (AKA the rich business owners) will do----->they will FLEE. This will happen no matter how much you whine, moan, groan, cry, and bitch. As long as there are other places that are more........shall we say.....receptive to business owners needs such as China etc, you are just spinning your wheels complaining, while screwing everyone else who is not screaming.

 

I fear that you people who work so hard will never learn; even after you legislate yourselves out of your own jobs. It is bad enough when someone screws you; as then you can hate them. But when you screw yourselves...........well that is the stuff that divorces, bankruptcys, and total failures are made of.

 

Better discover what/who really creates jobs that mean something real quick, or find yourselves in a whole world of hurt. I came from where you are, and once you discover what is really going on, your whole perspective changes...........that is unless you want to be in a bread line........or owing your soul to some politician who if he does not get re-elected, you are screwed, blued, and tattooed.

 

If what President Obama says is correct---------->Illinois would not be 12 BILLION in the hole, California would not be on the verge of Bankruptcy, Chicago and every big liberal city would be in the black and not the red, and the USSR would still be in operational order while making us look bad. Name any large LIBERAL city or State who is in even decent shape!!! Name 1, just 1!!!! Keep on down this path, and you will reap what you sow.

 

At least you will have the distinct honor of screwing yourselves. And if you enjoy sticking the sha-lai-lee up your own posterior, far be it from me to disuade you. I along with many others will just smile, as when the sha-lai-lee enters unknown territories, will grab ahold of it, and rotate it a little to insure you really enjoy it-)

Edited July 9, 2010 by Imawhosure

[oldenuff2knowbetter]

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES!!!

[Trimdingman]

I rarely shop at Wal-Mart, because of the drive, the walking, and the line-ups. I may save ten bucks, but it costs me an hour of my time, which I value at more than ten bucks. Roadtrip is right that Wal-Mart benefits the low and middle income earners who have to look for the best bargains even if it is inconvenient. If people didn't want Wal-Mart, it wouldn't exist, so complaining about it doesn't make any sense.

[retro-man]

I would call you an ostrich, given that you seem determined to ignore evidence contrary to your assertions by sticking your head in the sand (I could say that your head is stuck somewhere else, but I'll be nicer to you than you are to me).

Whatever.

The simple fact is that this limiting of government by Ronald Reagan exists largely in your imagination, along with the imaginations of his most fervent supporters. I have yet to see where government at any level has shrunk over the past 30 years.

Reagan may not have limited the government in any serious way (perhaps, as with Bush, a serious case of "do as I say, not as I do." Would you care to address the hypocrisy?....) but what he did do is to bring the vilification of government into the cultural mainstream. To the point where you have large numbers of people today who wake up, get the news on their "socialized" (FCC) airwaves, brush their teeth with their "socialized" water (municipal water supplies that were put in place decades ago by "the guvmint"), send their kids off to "socialized schools", drive to work on their "socialized" roads with their "socialized traffic signals and paint stripes, spend the day under the protection of their "socialized" police and military, use tools run on their "socialized" electricity (if they live anywhere near BPA, TVA, or any number of other "govmint" developed infrastructures), flush the toilet into their "socialized" sewers, relax at the "socialized" park on the weekend, support the role of their "socialized" armed forces in re-making other regions of the world safe for democracy.... and yet at the same time believe with all their hearts that the government can't do anything right; people who don't acknowledge any legitimate need for a "public sector" alongside the private sector, and who have no understanding of how the 2 have interacted to shape this country. Never have so many had so little grasp on reality. Or history.

 

You also ignore that many states and localities have enacted the policies that you support, and they have, over the long term, either failed outright, or brought about unintended consequences. For that matter, we tried protectionism in the 1930s, and it was a disaster not just for this country, but for Europe, too.

Links please. You keep saying things like this, and also that all those other countries' health care systems are failing, or are going to fail - but I'm not seeing it yet. We all know your position on Smoot Hawley - enacted during a time when overseas trade accounted for a miniscule portion of the economy compared to what it does today. We all know that is one of the history lessons that you have internalized. The US GDP in 1927 was $95.5 bn. Trade activity that year (goods and services, in and out) was $12.7 bn, or about 13% of GDP (netted to surplus of 0.5% of GDP that year). For 2008, total trade activity, in and out, goods and services, was $3,403 bn, against a GDP of $14,441.4 bn, or 24% of GDP, with a net deficit of $821 bn, or 5.7% of GDP. 5.7% of our GDP walked out of the country in 2008.

 

Plus, if I buy an American-made stereo, and it burns down my house, or a domestic car, and it's in the shop every other month, I would say that I'm paying a very dear price for basing my purchasing decisions on whether the product is made here.

We are not "saving" anything: what we are doing is allowing corporations - who are charter-bound to maximize shareholder profit, and whose horizon of responsibility is barely more than 3 months long - to externalize their costs. So Chinese laborers work long hours for low wages, Chinese rivers flow with heavy metals, Chinese landscapes are deforested and turned to dustbowls, Chinese air is polluted (not entirely true: there is a measurable increase in acid rain and ozone in Japan, and as far away as the American Rockies, and the ph of the Pacific Ocean is becoming more acidic - believed to be a result of unregulated emissions from Chinese factories and power plants). So, shareholders profit, Joe Sixpak gets his cheap running shoes and his x-box (for as long as he may still have a job), and our standard of living, environment, and what little remains of our retirement slip down the toilet. The costs are "externalized" (from the shareholders - not from anybody else). If you think you're not paying, think again. This follows unfettered free trade as surely as night follows day. If you had a little less ideology and a little more perceptiveness, this would be obvious.

 

Here's the deal - when you know as much as I do on various subjects - history, economics, finance -

:hysterical: I'll just let that gem stand on its own.

 

We like ourselves, don't we?

[retro-man]

I'll join in support of laws and regulations that you obviously support (protectionism and higher taxes, for example), which will impact all of us, not just "the rich."

 

Until then, no dice. You're a LONG way from showing me exactly why I should allow the politicians you support to manage my life with more rules and regulations to recapture a past that exists largely in your imagination.

Maybe your past sucked, what with the Gremlin, and being a latchkey child, and all that. Mine was freakin' Camelot by comparison evidently. Oh, and at least I have an imagination.

 

 

 

What's ludicrous is your ignorance on this subject.

 

I'll break it down for you to make this easy:

 

1. Your original argument was that manufacturing is dying in this country.

 

2. I offered proof - from a Washington Post article - that manufacturing has remained a constant percentage of GDP over the years, and is not dying in this country. Your replied this was because the Bush Administration reclassified fast-food workers as being engaged in manufacturing, and I showed that this was a PROPOSAL (and, I agreed, it was a dumb one), and nothing more. It has had no impact on manufacturing statistics.

Yeah, tell you what, why don't you just rent a hall - let's say Beaver Stadium at Penn State - close to you, and it's nice and big. Fill it with the unemployed (you'll have to do 130 shifts to accomodate them all). You and your buddies can lecture them about how healthy the economy and the manufacturing sector are after 8 years of Bush and 30 years of supply side. You can give them all the "proof". Let me know what kind of reception you get.

 

"I can walk!!!!! I can walk!!!!"

 

 

 

"Womenfolk" (maybe you should have called them "the little ladies") have always been a part of the workforce, and began entering in much greater numbers in the 1960s, long before Reagan was president. This idea was RESISTED by conservatives, and promoted by feminists and their supporters.

Look, we've already been over this. I know it was "all hands on deck" at the Beck house. Apparently your "menfolk" just weren't up to the task. Sorry to hear that. Not my fault.

 

Now, if you are so concerned about deficits, and the purchase of our debt by the Chinese, please explain HOW you would cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the biggest drivers of federal spending, both now and in the future. (Cutting military expenditures will be sufficient to right the ship, no matter who fervently you believe it will be so. We aren't going to abolish the military, or return it to 1950s levels of appropriations.)

 

You can come to my office, and, over a nice cup of coffee, people who actually understand these issues (i.e., not members of the editorial staffs of Mother Jones or The Nation) will explain this to you in very great detail, with nice charts and graphs that make it all very easy to understand.

That's very kind of you. Is it ok if I bring along a few friends, like David Korten, Robert Reich, or Paul Krugman? Hell, I'll even see if Noam Chomsky can come along. That should make for some lively discussion.

 

As for raising taxes - again, you keep dodging the example of California, which has enacted all of the policies you claim to support (high, progressive taxes on individuals; high taxes on business; strict environmental regulations; lavish social programs) and is a fiscal basket case. The state has levied high taxes, and they STILL aren't enough to support the spending by those who continually clamor for more government money. (For that matter, New Jersey, right next door to Pennsylvania, has the highest state and local tax burden in the nation, and it isn't in much better shape than California from a fiscal standpoint.)

 

The idea that if we had kept taxes at a certain level, we would not have deficits, is laughable, given that history has shown that, since the early 1970s, in the wake of the Great Society programs and the constant clamoring for more benefits for a greater number of people, government at ALL levels will spend every available dollar it can somehow get its hands on.

Ok, I'll go that far with you: we probably need a "reset" on a number of things. What's your solution to any of these? Let everybody rot in the streets?

 

 

 

Maybe that's because people involved in designing buildings - i.e., real estate - would also suffer when a real estate bubble pops? I'm sorry that they lost their jobs, but I wonder how many of them were happy to ride the real estate bubble for all it was worth when it was inflating.

Maybe it's because we had a bunch of worthless Wall Street parasites "diddling" the system by "inventing" new financial "products" that served no useful purpose but to wildly enrich the financiers. Whilst the regulators, cowed by the universal anti-government sentiment whipped up by Reagan and his ideological heirs, sat with their thumbs up their butts. (Or it could have been that thing where the Bush Administration ignored the pleadings of 50 states attorneys general to let them regulate banks in their own states.) Edited July 12, 2010 by retro-man

[Mark B. Morrow]

Thanks RetroMan.

 

Those who think the Government is always the problem have no business running the Government. They are not at all good at it.

 

I find it funny that those here who think Obama has failed because he hasn't fixed the mess he inherited on January 20, 2009 in 18 months.

 

They didn't seem to think that W's economics failed when the economy tanked on his watch after 7 years, including 6 years where his party controlled Congress. W received a surplus upon taking office and he pissed it away. He financed tax cuts, ballooning spending and earmarks (W never vetoed a single spending bill) and two wars, sold to the American people as short term engagements, by dishonest off budget expenditures and deficit spending. Where were these critics when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" ?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[BlackHorse]

Thanks RetroMan.

 

Those who think the Government is always the problem have no business running the Government. They are not at all good at it.

 

I find it funny that those here who think Obama has failed because he hasn't fixed the mess he inherited on January 20, 2009 in 18 months.

 

They didn't seem to think that W's economics failed when the economy tanked on his watch after 7 years, including 6 years where his party controlled Congress. W received a surplus upon taking office and he pissed it away. He financed tax cuts, ballooning spending and earmarks (W never vetoed a single spending bill) and two wars, sold to the American people as short term engagements, by dishonest off budget expenditures and deficit spending. Where were these critics when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" ?

 

Those who think the Government has all the answers and solutions to all of our problems have no business running the government, they become tyrants.

 

I find it funny that those here who continue to blame Bush for everything fail to grasp that it wasn't Bush who turned deficits into an olympic event. Thirteen trillion dollars on the Barack Obama / Democrat Party tab. A sum that dwarfs by far the Bush era deficits. He didn't just inherit a mess, he made the mess ten times worse.

 

Earmarks? Really? You're bitching about Bush's earmarks? Obama signed a bill with over 9000 earmarks in it, the largest in history, and that was after he promised the American people that he would never do such a thing.

 

As far as the wars being "sold to the American people as short term engagements" all I can say is BS!!! Neither Bush nor any member of his administration ever promsied that the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan would ever be quick or short term. On the contrary they made it clear to the American people that the effort would be lengthy and prolonged and not to expect a quick finish.

 

Now I don't know what version of History you've chosen to believe but you aren't going to pass off that rewritten trash here and expect everyone to believe it.

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2010 by BlackHorse

[xr7g428]

Retro, what do you want?

 

Mark, Do you recall anything that might have occurred in say September of 2001? Is there any possibility that no matter who was in office, 2002 would not be the same?

[retro-man]

Retro, what do you want?

 

Mark, Do you recall anything that might have occurred in say September of 2001? Is there any possibility that no matter who was in office, 2002 would not be the same?

xr7g428,

Let me try and give that a thoughtful answer:

- I want for people to pay their way.

- I want for work to be respected and for greed to be reviled.

- I want recognition that what's legal and what's right are often not the same thing.

- I want recognition that the private sector and the public sector each fill a necessary role.

- I want cooperation in politics instead of extremism and obstructionism.

- I want an awareness of the truth that Einstein knew: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Edited July 12, 2010 by retro-man

[BlackHorse]

xr7g428,

Let me try and give that a thoughtful answer:

- I want for people to pay their way.

 

 

Congratulations, you're a conservative.

 

- I want for work to be respected and for greed to be reviled.

 

By and large, work is respected, especially among those of us who want to work and pay our own way. As for greed. One man's greed is another man's determination to succeed and improve his lot in life. It's not up to you, me or anyone to say what is or is not greed with respect to a persons labor or pursuit of a better life.

 

- I want recognition that what's legal and what's right are often not the same thing.

 

Again, this is something that we all know to be true. It was technically legal to ban guns in Chicago and Washington DC, but it wasn't right. We can all sit around for days on end and provide example after example of this and it gets recognized all the time so your wish is granted.

 

- I want recognition that the private sector and the public sector each fill a necessary role.

 

Ok, again, wish granted. This is something we all know to be true and it's not like there's some big conspiracy to deny one or ther other although there is a concerted effort in the White House right now to make a whole lot more of the private sector fall under the public one.

 

- I want cooperation in politics instead of extremism and obstructionism.

 

Wish away, it's not going to happen. One mans extremist is another mans champion. This is how it's been since before the foundation of this nation and has been ever since. It's the same way in most other nations as well.

 

 

- I want an awareness of the truth that Einstein knew: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

 

Thank you for that wish from the department of deep meditative thoughts. It means nothing.

 

 

Quite frankly your whole list read like some sophomoric attempt to convey some sort of high minded sophistication. However it did not answer xr7's question in any way and offered nothing relevant to this conversation or any that I can think of.

[retro-man]

Quite frankly your whole list read like some sophomoric attempt to convey some sort of high minded sophistication. However it did not answer xr7's question in any way and offered nothing relevant to this conversation or any that I can think of.

Quite frankly, you misinterpreted every sentence. Evidently even a "sophomoric attempt to convey some sort of high minded sophistication" is way over your head. I suppose I could've written a book in answer to xr7's question to make it more concrete and less abstract for you. But you don't strike me as the bookish type.

[BlackHorse]

Quite frankly, you misinterpreted every sentence. Evidently even a "sophomoric attempt to convey some sort of high minded sophistication" is way over your head. I suppose I could've written a book in answer to xr7's question to make it more concrete and less abstract for you. But you don't strike me as the bookish type.

 

Abstract is a fair description of your response to his question I think. But we aren't in a philosophy class here. You probably should have gone for concrete. I've been reading your posts on this thread since I started it and I didn't respond to any of them because they all just read like left wing talking points and it was obvious that no amount of debate can or will change your mind. I'm not going to try and change your mind retro. The policies, philosophies and principles of left wing politicians in this country are proven failures everywhere they have been tried around the world as well as here. This is what I know to be true. You can't change my mind, just as I can't change yours so let's not even bother arguing about it.

[RangerM]

Whatever.

Reagan may not have limited the government....but what he did do is to bring the vilification of government into the cultural mainstream. To the point where you have large numbers of people today who wake up, get their......"socialized" (FCC) airwaves...."socialized" water...."socialized schools"....."socialized" roads...."socialized traffic signals and paint stripes....."socialized" police and military......"socialized" electricity....."socialized" sewers....."socialized" park....."socialized" armed forces.........and yet at the same time believe with all their hearts that the government can't do anything right; people who don't acknowledge any legitimate need for a "public sector" alongside the private sector, and who have no understanding of how the 2 have interacted to shape this country. Never have so many had so little grasp on reality. Or history.

I don't think anyone advocates for complete anarchy, except maybe for the most extreme libertarian.

 

However using your list, can you think of ways that many of them started out as positives, and yet nowadays have turned into negatives? If you can acknowledge that government has dropped the ball on many of these, you've reached the conservative point of view.

 

BUT, if your answer is simply "investing" more of others' money into systems that have demonstrated a lack of ability, will, or respect for the source of those funds, then you've reached the (seemingly impossible) chasm between us.

 

If only the government had stopped at those items you brought up, perhaps those things may not have soured many people (including me) on government's role. It's too big, and does too many things

Edited July 12, 2010 by RangerM

[RangerM]

Those who think the Government is always the problem have no business running the Government. They are not at all good at it.

And who thinks that Government is always the problem? Do they exist in reality or just your mind?

 

I find it funny that those here who think Obama has failed because he hasn't fixed the mess he inherited on January 20, 2009 in 18 months.

How about starting with exactly WHAT has he accomplished that he said he would. Should he get an "A" , an "F", or an "Incomplete"?

 

They didn't seem to think that W's economics failed when the economy tanked on his watch after 7 years.

Did anyone (including W) ever promise an economy without recession, or did you dream that?

 

I don't blame W for it, any more than I blame Obama for it.

 

However, I DO blame Obama for his "throw money at everything, until something sticks" response to it. Do you?

[RangerM]

Let me try and give that a thoughtful answer:

- I want for people to pay their way.

- I want for work to be respected and for greed to be reviled.

- I want recognition that what's legal and what's right are often not the same thing.

- I want recognition that the private sector and the public sector each fill a necessary role.

- I want cooperation in politics instead of extremism and obstructionism.

- I want an awareness of the truth that Einstein knew: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

And exactly how do you believe that Conservatives differ from you in these matters?

 

The difference is where is the line to be drawn, just as it always has been.