DougH 270 #76 August 7, 2010 Quote www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1 David Stockman was a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan I agree with 99% of that article. Our government, on both sides of the aisle, have run the train of the tracks big time. I am glad I don't have any kids, I would have a tough time passing this sinking ship off to them. I am 99% sure that we no longer have the ability or the will to get things going in the right direction."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #77 August 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Why is someone who is against an economic theory you subscribe to all of a sudden the new messiah? Because he's saying something Kallend approves of, of course - that's all that's needed. Why don't you detail for us where Stockman is wrong, or has defective conservative credentials, instead of repeatedly trying to make it about me? I've answered that several times upthread, perfesser - why don't you go re-read that until you understand it instead of asking me again and again and again? Saying "An entirely one-sided, "It's all the fault of the Reps" commentary - and of course it's complete bullshit. But, since it dovetails so nicely with your opinion, you're going to call it gospel truth" hardly constitutes a critique.Fact is, you can't rebut any of the details of his article, can you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 August 7, 2010 I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit. I didn't say I disagreed with his point - in fact, since a search will show that I think both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, I believe it's rather obvious that I share it, at least in the broad strokes. So, now that I've told you yet AGAIN, you can finally let that strawman you're beating die a decent death instead of flogging it around the forum over and over and over again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #79 August 7, 2010 Quote I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit. I didn't say I disagreed with his point - in fact, since a search will show that I think both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, I believe it's rather obvious that I share it, at least in the broad strokes. . OK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans but agree that he's correct in doing so. Fair enough.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 August 7, 2010 QuoteOK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. You know, you might want to reconsider the Amazing Kreskin act - you're really not any good at it. Quotebut agree that he's correct in doing so. Correct in doing so? Yup - of course, I said THAT upthread, too. The quote of the "irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism", I like - I've said several times that the Reps are trying to be "Dem-lite" .Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #81 August 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteOK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. . Your statement "I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit." says otherwise. You say he's spouting bullshit, and you also agree with him. A wee bit of inconsistency there, Mike. Fact is, an ICON of Republican fiscal policy has put the boot in and you can't deal with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #82 August 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. . Your statement "I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit." says otherwise. You say he's spouting bullshit, and you also agree with him. A wee bit of inconsistency there, Mike. Fact is, an ICON of Republican fiscal policy has put the boot in and you can't deal with it. Why is it inconsistent? I agree with what he says but I think he failed to address failings of the other party. I read the article and I don't see him defending the actions of the democratic party? He just didn't address that part of the equation. I think both sides are screwing us and mortgaging our futures for their own personal gain, and their political careers."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #83 August 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote OK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. . Your statement "I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit." says otherwise. You say he's spouting bullshit, and you also agree with him. A wee bit of inconsistency there, Mike. Fact is, an ICON of Republican fiscal policy has put the boot in and you can't deal with it. Why is it inconsistent? . Doug, I agree with you, and what you wrote is pure bullshit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #84 August 7, 2010 That is the complete truth, but your not telling the whole story."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #85 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote OK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. . Your statement "I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit." says otherwise. You say he's spouting bullshit, and you also agree with him. A wee bit of inconsistency there, Mike. Fact is, an ICON of Republican fiscal policy has put the boot in and you can't deal with it. Why is it inconsistent? . Doug, I agree with you, and what you wrote is pure bullshit. It is nice to see your true beliefs . . . in so far as that you agree with bullshit.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #86 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote OK, so you're pissed that he's blaming the Republicans Pissed? No. . Your statement "I said his commentary is one-sided and blaming the Reps for everything, which is bullshit." says otherwise. You say he's spouting bullshit, and you also agree with him. A wee bit of inconsistency there, Mike. Fact is, an ICON of Republican fiscal policy has put the boot in and you can't deal with it. Why is it inconsistent? . Doug, I agree with you, and what you wrote is pure bullshit. It is nice to see your true beliefs . . . in so far as that you agree with bullshit. Sorry, forgot the tag. I notice YOU too haven't been able to rebut anything that Stockman wrote, but just make lame attempts at diversion. Must be a GOP embarrassment thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #87 August 8, 2010 man...people be trippin' Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #88 August 8, 2010 Quote Quote www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1 David Stockman was a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan I agree with 99% of that article. Our government, on both sides of the aisle, have run the train of the tracks big time. I am glad I don't have any kids, I would have a tough time passing this sinking ship off to them. I am 99% sure that we no longer have the ability or the will to get things going in the right direction. As a summation of yourlong string of posts that basically say the same thing, All I can ask is how you've forgotten about the Clinton Amin already? He cut spending, raised taxes and left a surplus; the debt would have actually fallen the following year had he been president for another year or his policies been maintained. So what were his policies? - Raise taxes, esp on the top few % - Cut spending, esp military - Try to get uni HC - Give incentive for education How do Obama's policies differ from Clinton's? Obama inherited the downswing of the Great Republican Recession, so he can't institute tax increases as Clinton was able to as GHWB's tax increases/military spending cuts started a healthy recovery, but he will probably allow the GWB tax cuts to expire and go from there. We see the same garbage coming from the Republican Party hammering things, same recovery from the D's fixing things. Look at this graph I cut from another site and lined to illustrate Republican trends: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg Tupically, for the last 100 years the right has followed a pattern of cut taxes, increase spending esp military. The left has raised taxes and cut spending, incr social spending. There are deviations to this, Eisenhower kept taxes high and tried to get us out of proxy wars; the debt fell under him 3 of his 8 years. GHWB raised taxes a tiny bit, but what else could he do? I give him cedit but not that much. Kennedy / LBJ cut taxes but LBJ raised them; the top brkt was so high that all they could do was to cut them. Of course Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%, but that was after 2.5 years of thinking low taxes and apathy would fix the GD. So to say these parties all do the same is complete lunacy. It's just an endorsement for a frimnge party like the Libertarians, who do the same things Republicans do but with irrationality. So other than typical cronyism with politics, illustrate how the protocol is the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #89 August 8, 2010 the article says that the Republicans do not tax enough to pay for what the Government spends. What it fails to mention is that adding entitlements such as social security and health care and ect allows the Government to increase in size and spending thus requiring more taxes and we all know how bad the government is at handling revenues. Just look at California or New York and you will see how good the Democrats are at balancing their budget. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 192 #90 August 8, 2010 PLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #91 August 8, 2010 Quote the article says that the Republicans do not tax enough to pay for what the Government spends. What it fails to mention is that adding entitlements such as social security and health care and ect allows the Government to increase in size and spending thus requiring more taxes and we all know how bad the government is at handling revenues. Just look at California or New York and you will see how good the Democrats are at balancing their budget. Look at Reagan's record, and GWB's record, and you'll see how good GOP administrations are at balancing budgets.GWB did a great job improving the economy too, NOT!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 August 8, 2010 Quote the article says that the Republicans do not tax enough to pay for what the Government spends. What it fails to mention is that adding entitlements such as social security and health care and ect allows the Government to increase in size and spending thus requiring more taxes and we all know how bad the government is at handling revenues. Just look at California or New York and you will see how good the Democrats are at balancing their budget. As usual, your point is irrelevant. This illustrates the fiscal help each state will receive (in millions): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3258 - California $3,070 - Florida $1,339 - New York $2,835 - Texas $1,688 - Arizona $563 Now let's look at each of their population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population - California 36,961,664 - Florida 18,537,969 - New York 19,541,453 - Texas 24,782,302 - Arizona 6,595,778 - California $83 per person - Florida $72 per person - New York $145 per person - Texas $68 per person - Arizona $85 per person So you see California is not that much higher than some red states, lower than Arizona, an extreme red state. New York has inherent budgetary costs and is a much more complex society than the rest of the country. By the data, it appears wherever immigration ports are, budgets are worse, more aid is given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 August 8, 2010 QuotePLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #94 August 9, 2010 Quote Quote PLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. I think the killfile is more appropriate.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 August 10, 2010 QuoteQuotePLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Projecting again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #96 August 10, 2010 Quote Quote Quote PLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. I think the killfile is more appropriate. Either way, any misdirection beats you having to address any issues, that's for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 August 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotePLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Projecting again? Adding nothing still? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 August 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Projecting again? Adding nothing still? Adding more than you, like usual.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #99 August 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePLEASE implement a killfile utility on this site. Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives. Projecting again? Adding nothing still? Adding more than you, like usual. Usual? I would be willing to bet "Ever".I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
