Somebody shot me. This book is killing me... and I LIKE reading.
It should be titled "My Summer Vacation as the President of the United States". It is all superficial recordation of events and places without ANY intraspection.
For example, In Reagan's memoirs he recounts his meeting with Gorbechov in Iceland and spends a lot of time explaining how he began to see the humanity of the man and his own perceptions of his old foe began to change and a kind of respect and trust developed. He himself grew as a person by allowing himself the opportunity to see the Premier as sincere and hopeful. The world's two most powerful nations, bitter rivals for 40 years, had grown to call each other friend! And a kind of candor we had never seen between the two countries before emerged for the first time in a generation. Good Stuff!
Here is Clinton's take on him meeting with Argentina's President, "President Carlos Menem had been a strong ally of the United States, supporting America in the Gulf War and in Haiti and adopting a strong free-market economic policy. He hosted a barbeque at the Rural Centerin Buenos Aires that included tango lessons for Hillary and me..."
Someone asked this in another thread and I never saw the answer. What did Clinton actually do to make all of this happen?
Well, prosperous can take a couple avenues. A country can be prosperous while its citizens are poor, or a country can distribute its wealth and the entire country can be collectively prosperous.
Clinton signed laws to help spread the wealth through education reforms (tax breaks), welfare reform, and many other social programs designed to help people. I know you think the boom of the 90's was all about the advent of the computer, which is certainly true at least in part, but what the leadership does with that economic boom is more important than the boom itself.
We look at what Bush has done with:
1. Tax breaks for corporations 2. Education cuts 3. Medicare cuts 4. Ergonomics Bill 5. Overtime Bill ...and on, and on......
Are you aware that tuition has increased 50% over the last 2 years in Arizona universities? We can speculate that they may have regardless of who was in office, but I think there is enough supporting evidence to introduce the likelihood that Bush-enomics plays a great part in the inaccessibility to education by the poor. I know fellow students complain about virtually no grant money and fewer government loans being available. This is a dynamic matter, but having Clinton in office versus a chimp is obviously more beneficial to the poor.
So, did Clinton play a Superman and single-handedly save the world? Of course not, but he took the economic boom and ensured the poor received their piece of it.
Someone asked this in another thread and I never saw the answer. What did Clinton actually do to make all of this happen?
In short?
He starved every American social and defense (CIA, FBI, FAA Security, HeadStart, Defense contracts, Etc..) programs possible to make the deficit look smaller THEN signed NAFTA into law. The giant sucking sound of US jobs headed over seas and 9/11 can be directly attributed to his starvation of critical defense and US job security. Also he allowed for incredible tax relief for Corporate America, I just heard blurb not long ago that the GAO is a tad miffed about this oversight during hios administration.
Well, prosperous can take a couple avenues. A country can be prosperous while its citizens are poor, or a country can distribute its wealth and the entire country can be collectively prosperous.
Clinton signed laws to help spread the wealth through education reforms (tax breaks), welfare reform, and many other social programs designed to help people. I know you think the boom of the 90's was all about the advent of the computer, which is certainly true at least in part, but what the leadership does with that economic boom is more important than the boom itself.
We look at what Bush has done with:
1. Tax breaks for corporations 2. Education cuts 3. Medicare cuts 4. Ergonomics Bill 5. Overtime Bill ...and on, and on......
Are you aware that tuition has increased 50% over the last 2 years in Arizona universities? We can speculate that they may have regardless of who was in office, but I think there is enough supporting evidence to introduce the likelihood that Bush-enomics plays a great part in the inaccessibility to education by the poor. I know fellow students complain about virtually no grant money and fewer government loans being available. This is a dynamic matter, but having Clinton in office versus a chimp is obviously more beneficial to the poor.
So, did Clinton play a Superman and single-handedly save the world? Of course not, but he took the economic boom and ensured the poor received their piece of it.
In other words, he didn't do anything to cause a good economy, he just moved money from the rich to the poor.
In other words, he didn't do anything to cause a good economy, he just moved money from the rich to the poor.
The economy is much more dynamic than just 1 or 2 facets. But I feel one of the most important aspects of the economy from the president's perspective is to ensure no one is excluded. Your boy Hoover was the first preseident to attempt trickle down; I won't talk about the results. Trickle up works, as poor people spend their money immediately which in turn sparks the economy. You see what the Repub feds have tried with lowering the interest rate to 45-year lows to kick the economy, which isn't working after 2 years or so. What does work is to throw money where you know it will be recirculated. You can call it stealing, and I'll call what the Repubs do as hoarding, but once agin we are talking semantics with labels. What works is to include everyone, which is what the Dems usually do. Your boy funels the $$$ toward the top where the rich can keep score as if it's some little game where the millionaire with the most millions wins, while the poor die in the streets... I have to go buy an American flag, I'll talk to ya later.
Yeah, how dare they want to keep some of their own money.
Yeah, it's such a shame that they need to move their businesses overseas so they make more by incorporating cheap labor and sheltering the paultry amount taxable income they make.. I'm so glad they themselves live in the US and trickel down their millions in frivolous care free shopping sprees and buying overpriced items made in Korea, China and a few selected US companies like Ford for their fleet vehicles and corporate cell phone services...
On the bright side. Well thank god for US Automakers Sprint MCI and their respective Unions.. Atleast some of us are still working and have a bright future.
Your boy Hoover was the first preseident to attempt trickle down; I won't talk about the results.
Why not? You aren't seriously suggesting that the Great Depression had ANYTHING to do with Hoover? Insider trading, leveraged stock purchases based on promissory notes backed by worthless paper is what caused it. So go on, tell us what happened as a result of Hoover's policies?
Why not? You aren't seriously suggesting that the Great Depression had ANYTHING to do with Hoover? Insider trading, leveraged stock purchases based on promissory notes backed by worthless paper is what caused it. So go on, tell us what happened as a result of Hoover's policies?
"If the Fed is to be criticized for aggravating the Great Depression, then it's not because it intervened, but because it did not intervene enough. It is yet one more example of how Hoover's laissez-faire policies failed to head off the Depression."
"Roosevelt would go on to create the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission to protect the American economy from bank runs in the future. And although the 1987 crash on Wall Street was the largest in American history, these safeguards worked admirably to prevent a bank panic from depressing the economy."
"A favorite conservative argument is that the Federal Reserve Board caused the Great Depression by contracting the money supply.
This is a complete myth. According to the Federal Reserve's own records, at no time did the Fed pull money out of the system. Although it's true that the money supply contracted 31 percent between 1929 and 1933, this was not because of the Fed. Rather, the contraction was caused by three dramatic runs on banks, which would close 10,000 banks by 1933. So many failures were significant, because bank deposits formed 92 percent of all the money in circulation."
"Furthermore, the national wealth that concentrated in a few people weakened consumer power and limited consumer industries."
This is why distribution of wealth is important.
"As a result, many people were unemployed and their life became very difficult. Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, the two presidents during the Great Depression period, tried to save the economy. Hoover's conservative program focused more on helping businesses. Hoover hesitated to provide more support for ordinary people. In contrast, Roosevelt's liberal New Deal, especially the second New Deal, gave more government financial assistance to people."
"Furthermore, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased taxes to eliminate deficit in RFC expenditures."
Raising taxes to ensure a surplus is a positive thing.
"In Hoover's program, unemployed and homeless people did not get much support from the government. As a Conservative, Hoover believed that helping ordinary people would not boost the economy and bring the country out of the depression."
History has proven that welfare helps not only the poor, but it kick-starts the ecnomy for all, even the rich.
"This showed the liberal and conservative differences. Conservative wanted to limit the government intervention in private businesses while liberals wanted the government to regulate corporations and support ordinary people more."
You see which works best in the longrun.
"The Second New Deal, starting in 1935, benefited ordinary people. The main goal of the Second New Deal was to promote the consumer society and reduce corporation's concentration of power. More jobs, higher salary, and more welfare support from the government would boost consumption and lead to national economic recovery."
"Clearly, Roosevelt, with his liberal ideas, wanted to reduce the economic power concentrated in corporations and distribute wealth more equally among majority ordinary people."
"He also felt that the control by government of business would affect the daily lives of each individual and would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom. Furthermore, even if the government conduct of business could give more efficiency instead of less, the fundamental objection to it would remain unchanged. It would increase abuse and corruption."
Isn't this evident today. If you look at it, government regulation of business leads to fair play and more prosperity for the people. When corporations control government we are left with Fascism, which is where we are heading today.
Look what Hoover, Bush 1, and Bush 2 have incommon; they took robust economies and threw them in the dumper.
"These shacks were built of cardboard, scrap metal, packing boxes and tar paper. People bitterly called these settlements Hoovervilles, after President Herbert Hoover."
Hoovervilles.....Bahahahahaha.... makes sense
"President Hoover did not want to interfere with the economy because he called the depression a “temporary halt in the prosperity of a great people”. The president depended on business companies and industries to take part in national stabilization efforts."
"The Social Security Act of 1935 was one of the New Deal’s most important reforms. It provided pensions to retired Americans. The law also set up a system of unemployment insurance. This protected Americans who lost their jobs. The government would give them money for a certain period of time. The social security also provided payments to disabled or needy people. These payments are known as welfare. The system was not perfect. It did not give all retired Americans pensions, nor did it give all Americans unemployment insurance. However, it was a giant step toward improvement in the lives of millions of Americans."
"Its reforms reduced the differences between the rich and the poor."
What I love is the phrase "distribution of wealth". Doesn't that sound so nice and fun and happy? Sounds much better than, "stealing from the rich" doesn't it? Who is the member who has 5 or so Indy Fieros? I'm going over his house to "distribute the Indys". It will benefit the Fiero economy as there will be 5 people buying Fiero parts instead of 1 person. I have no Indys, so I'm poor. Why should I actually work to get an Indy when I can "distribute" from those who have more Indys?
What I love is the phrase "distribution of wealth". Doesn't that sound so nice and fun and happy? Sounds much better than, "stealing from the rich" doesn't it? Who is the member who has 5 or so Indy Fieros? I'm going over his house to "distribute the Indys". It will benefit the Fiero economy as there will be 5 people buying Fiero parts instead of 1 person. I have no Indys, so I'm poor. Why should I actually work to get an Indy when I can "distribute" from those who have more Indys?
Yeah, I always like the J. Paul Getty Story regarding the tired old Redistribution of Wealth arguement. He was having dinner with his accountant one night when a man approached the table and started raving about him having too much and other people starving. Getty whispered to his accountant who started scribbling some numbers on a napkin. The accountant whispered back to Getty who reached into his pocket and pulled out .19 cents. He said, "OK, here is your share of my wealth. Don't spend it all in one place."
Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?
Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?
Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?
Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down
With our current fed system (money based on essentially rich people) we have all the money in the world. IF like I said in another thread the Euro is based on gold we are screwed!! Because money based on something of value is MUCH more stable than money based on promissory notes that have nothing but the word of mouth.
SO Though we may have beaten "communist economics" through over inflation of our dollar does not mean our current financial system is sound.
What will happen IF the euro is base on gold is very alarming BECAUSE it means european wages are base on something of value regardless of how much the item is in American dollars.
In other words a quality item could be manufactured at a very low price in an gold based economy, then turnd over and sold at a inflated price based on the American dollar... In effect we are promising to pay with money that has no value, in effect we are buying things that are "worth" what we say it is worth based on a promise backed by.... What???
Property, houses, office buildings and stuff like that? However who wants to by a building in the US when you cant pay the people to work for you? Again IF I were a smart European business man I would take as much promissory notes possible, devalue it by getting as much property as I could as cheap as I could. THEN open a business in the US and offer the lowest wages I could.. Knowing that the people of the US HAVE NO CHOICE but to work for peanuts in order to maintain an ever decreasing lifestyle, while I get a high quality item to sell on the world market.. I could care less if I didn't turn much of a proffit at first because in the end the I will own America
America will rott from the inside out and people will be force onto the streets in record numbers as the cost of living increases because of a money system based on nothing. However the rich people who have LOTS of money (like me a smart european business man) can adapt and move investments arround to "hide" my money OR I can create a business in another country where the money system is infinatly more stable, continue to sell my wares to the US and not have to worry about the depreciation or ROI because the ROI is increadible!! There will virtually never be a loss when dealing with the US, you could literally OWN the United States of America and pay for it with their own money!!
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-29-2004).]
With our current fed system (money based on essentially rich people) we have all the money in the world. IF like I said in another thread the Euro is based on gold we are screwed!! Because money based on something of value is MUCH more stable than money based on promissory notes that have nothing but the word of mouth.
You won't get an arguement from me on the Gold Standard...with one exception: there is not enough gold in the world to back the money in circulation. Which is why we went off the standard in the first place. The value of money today is linked to a complicated formula of values based on various commodities. There is no doubt that the system is flawed. But you are wrong is assuming rich people have anything to do with the value of money. It's all consumer driven.
quote
SO Though we may have beaten "communist economics" through over inflation of our dollar does not mean our current financial system is sound.
What will happen IF the euro is base on gold is very alarming BECAUSE it means european wages are base on something of value regardless of how much the item is in American dollars.
In other words a quality item could be manufactured at a very low price in an gold based economy, then turnd over and sold at a inflated price based on the American dollar... In effect we are promising to pay with money that has no value, in effect we are buying things that are "worth" what we say it is worth based on a promise backed by.... What???
Property, houses, office buildings and stuff like that? However who wants to by a building in the US when you cant pay the people to work for you? Again IF I were a smart European business man I would take as much promissory notes possible, devalue it by getting as much property as I could as cheap as I could. THEN open a business in the US and offer the lowest wages I could.. Knowing that the people of the US HAVE NO CHOICE but to work for peanuts in order to maintain an ever decreasing lifestyle, while I get a high quality item to sell on the world market.. I could care less if I didn't turn much of a proffit at first because in the end the I will own America
America will rott from the inside out and people will be force onto the streets in record numbers as the cost of living increases because of a money system based on nothing. However the rich people who have LOTS of money (like me a smart european business man) can adapt and move investments arround to "hide" my money OR I can create a business in another country where the money system is infinatly more stable, continue to sell my wares to the US and not have to worry about the depreciation or ROI because the ROI is increadible!! There will virtually never be a loss when dealing with the US, you could literally OWN the United States of America and pay for it with their own money!!
Never happen. Not enough gold to back the Euros in circulation.
As for the latest of the book:
“Hillary had hurt her back while making a Christmas visit to Employees in the old executive office building, but it was getting better, after her doctor told her to stop wearing high heels on the hard marble floors”
First let me say that the book ends on a positive note. He comments on the beauty of the American system of government that allows for a peaceful transfer of power. He remarks on the mistakes he made with Pardons and reflects somewhat worriedly on his "legacy".
Unfortunatley the last chapter also read like a commercial for the Democratic party. He still doesn't understand that those values are the CAUSE of the landslide Republican victories at the polls over the last 10 years. Hubris of the worst order.
I am used to reading great books and my standards of literary content are high so I really really really tried to remember that this was NOT literature and focus instead on the content and not so much the delivery. Hence I won't remark on the long winded nature of the book. The message was all too clear however, Clinton still believes he was a good PResident with a good message and refuses to accept that his downfall was his fault, not even a little. That is a tragedy. Most men who err come to the conclusion that they played a role in their own demise, except for the criminal element in our society. Which was a constant vision in my head while reading this book. I could just imagine Clinton in a car with an officer shining a flashlight in his eyes and Bill saying, "It wasn't me officer, I didn't go anywhere near that liquor store, this is police brutality"!
That wasn't a partisan shot, it was just an observation about how this book unfolded; the poor childhood, the missing father, the excuses. There was lots of reference to what he WANTED to do but very little mention of what he did. He preserved 5% of the national forrests...OK, cool...I guess...what about making the world a safer place? What about the economy which he takes plenty of credit for but can't point to a single piece of HIS legislation that aided it? And perhaps more importantly, what about the promises that never came to fruition? He barely mentions Hillary Care or the Gays in the Military mess.
I guess the overall problem with the book is that it does't say anything we haven't heard before. I coulda just whipped-out a few copies of the NY Times and read the same stuff. I want to understand the DECISION process of why he bombed the hospital in the Sudan and why that seemed like a smart move. I want to know why he did essentially NOTHING after the first World Trade Center Bombing. I would liek to know why he lied to the American people instead of just standing up and announcing with pride what his value system was and if we didn't like an adulterer as President that was our problem. Nixon taught us that the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the crime, why didn't this President learn that?
He villifies the Republicans in Congress despite the fact that the voters put them there as a means of countering Clinton's policies. He acknowledges that Webb Hubbell committed a crime but says he would apologize to him for not pardoning him. WHY? No explanation of the Rich pardon, lots of finger pointing, and more typical Clintonesque duck-and-weave around the issue and never give a straight answer. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more, but I had hoped.
Like his administration the book is long winded and never really says anything. No heros, no resolutions, just an 8 year frat party in the White House right down to the pizza and blow jobs. Democrats will be embarrassed by this book and Republicans will find gobs of "I told you so's" in here. Ironically, Clinton choose to release it at this point in the election to help Kerry's chances, looks like he did just the opposite. This can only hurt him.
edit: typos
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-30-2004).]
...I didn't even bother to read it. 90% of the time it's either wrong, half-true, or irrelevant. The 10% of the time that it's actually RIGHT is not worth sifting through all the rest of it.
Ed
PS Thanks for the review. I'm not going to read the book.
...I didn't even bother to read it. 90% of the time it's either wrong, half-true, or irrelevant. The 10% of the time that it's actually RIGHT is not worth sifting through all the rest of it.
Ed
PS Thanks for the review. I'm not going to read the book.
So just believe as you and I am correct? Brilliant. Someone wanted to see Clinton's/Bush's deeds, so I spent the time posting them on the first page. Then Toddster wanted to assert that Hoover had nothing to do with the Great Depression, so I spent some time doing research and he posted several times to other issues while acquiescing the Hoover issue.
Here, Ed, this post is for you: Jesus is great, Republicans are great, and Bush is intelligent (that took a lot to squeeze out). You are representative of most right-wingers in that you are inflexible and intolerant in you thinking. The joke is that you pathetic religions praise (or claim to praise) charity and compassion when it is just a facade for control and coercion.
Hint for you: learn to debate the merits of issues instead of avoiding them.
What I love is the phrase "distribution of wealth". Doesn't that sound so nice and fun and happy? Sounds much better than, "stealing from the rich" doesn't it? Who is the member who has 5 or so Indy Fieros? I'm going over his house to "distribute the Indys". It will benefit the Fiero economy as there will be 5 people buying Fiero parts instead of 1 person. I have no Indys, so I'm poor. Why should I actually work to get an Indy when I can "distribute" from those who have more Indys?
OK, we do away with distribution of wealth, remove government controls that prohibit the rich from screwing the poor (the few controls that are left), and then we see what happens. The classes would spread even more and there would eventually be a class war. The rich are too greedy to understand that redistribution of the wealth in the small ways that are done in America is more for their benefit than the benefit of the poor. People are motivated by 2 major ways: Fear and greed. Apparently greed wins out in America, which is why our, "wall" will fall too.
Good point, his legacy won't be memorialized with such greats as:
1. The Overtime Bill 2. A worthless/fruitlesss war that will net over 1k American deaths before the elction 3. Record job losses 4. Record deficits 5. Record stock market drops (although it appears they may recover enough for him to lose that titleb4 the election) 6. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. 7. Killed the Ergonomics Bill 8. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
1. Attacked and took over two countries. 2. Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. 3. Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history. 4. Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. 5. Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. 6. First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. 7. First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. (like that's a bad thing with our criminal president) 8. Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. 9. Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans. 10. My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history. 11. First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission. 12. Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. 13. In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war. 14. Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Helped make America a great, proserous place; most prosperous in history. Oh, screwed as many hags as possible too, but I guess that revokes the rest of the great things he's done, right? I see the neo-con agenda; keep the male's penises out of the wrong places, even if it litteraly means the end of the world.
About 90% of what you wrote above is either incorrect, or blamed on the wrong things, ie half-right. Blaming Bush for the economic downturn (which actually began in late 1999 and was exacerbated by 9/11) is just one example of this. That post is 90% liberal talking points and I serioulsy doubt that you can prove any of the things you accuse Bush of doing. And, BTW, your praise of Clinton is mostly wrong, too, as Clinton's policies had little to do with the economy of the 1990s. If anything, the tax act he signed in 1993 kept the economy of the 1990s from expanding too quickly (if, that is, "too quickly" is even possible in that context).
And the worst part about it is, your posts are always so very, very long! Not only are they mostly wrong, but they are TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You spent 780 words trying to rebut something Toddster said in a 3-sentence post about Hoover, for crying out loud! Just cutting-and-pasting your Hoover post into Word it came out to TWO PAGES!
So, Ed, here is a post for YOU: Jesus is great! Republicans are great! Bush is intelligent--a lot more intelligent than you give him credit for, ha ha. I am representative of most right-wingers in that I have a fairly good understanding of economics and human nature and why the two are interrelated, and that my thinking is ACTUALLY flexible, not the faux-flexible of many liberals--I believe that everyone deserves a fair shot at success but that it's not my fault if everyone doesn't make it. I believe that a safety net should be in place to help those who cannot help themselves, but that if you're able, you ought to be supporting yourself. I believe in lassez-faire capitalism.
The joke is that my religion is not "pathetic", as you contend; it does exonerate charity and compassion but not to the extreme you believe it does. My religion also says "God helps those who help themselves".
Hint for you: learn how to edit. Learn how to write. Any jerk can bludgeon people over the head with reams of cut-and-paste; while I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do. And that's why I posted what I said above--I don't bother to read most of your long-winded posts because they're usually nothing but hundreds or thousands of words of cut-and-paste, and as I said they are either 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant...and I stand by that.
Your reply to my previous post followed the same ratio.
"About 90% of what you wrote above is either incorrect, or blamed on the wrong things, ie half-right."
And you have yet to do anything but state this and provide no proof.....a little, 'your elders are always right' rhetoric.
"Blaming Bush for the economic downturn (which actually began in late 1999 and was exacerbated by 9/11) is just one example of this."
Giving away the Federal Reserve, and all the expense related to it was sheer brilliance. Yes the economy cycles and yes the econo9my was showing signs of slight downturn, but it was nowhere near the record-setting disaster it turned out to be. Furthermore, Clinton inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years.
"That post is 90% liberal talking points and I serioulsy doubt that you can prove any of the things you accuse Bush of doing."
I've made the assertions, quit the Ad Hominem and start posting supporting argument.
"And, BTW, your praise of Clinton is mostly wrong, too, as Clinton's policies had little to do with the economy of the 1990s. If anything, the tax act he signed in 1993 kept the economy of the 1990s from expanding too quickly (if, that is, "too quickly" is even possible in that context)."
And you support this how? Speaking of economic speed, Bush screwed the economy so bad that even Greenspan lowering the interest rate to 40+ years lows couldn't pull it out.
"And the worst part about it is, your posts are always so very, very long!"
I'm sorry for your short attention span....look.....shiny keys!!! ADD, we'll, I feel for you, but that excuse doesn't work with high-level politics.
"Not only are they mostly wrong, but they are TEDIOUS in their incorrectness."
Then prove it instead of rambling on about how you are right with no support.
"You spent 780 words trying to rebut something Toddster said in a 3-sentence post about Hoover, for crying out loud! Just cutting-and-pasting your Hoover post into Word it came out to TWO PAGES!"
And he has yet to rebut that.....the two of you have that in common as well as...well, look, shiny keys! Ignorant concision tantamount to 1-sentence slander is your trademark; whereas mine is to comprehensively answer posts and questions. It seems many conservatives share that trademark.
"So, Ed, here is a post for YOU: Jesus is great! Republicans are great! Bush is intelligent--a lot more intelligent than you give him credit for, ha ha."
Where is there any substance to your reply?
"I am representative of most right-wingers in that I have a fairly good understanding of economics and human nature and why the two are interrelated, and that my thinking is ACTUALLY flexible, not the faux-flexible of many liberals--I believe that everyone deserves a fair shot at success but that it's not my fault if everyone doesn't make it."
If you want to pretend the trademark of conservatives is to be flexible, compassionate, and all listening, then you can live in that fantasy world. The conservative mantra is to slam the fist of intolerance and demand, 'personal responsibility' from the pee-ons, while of course still allowing corporate corruption and exoneration. You claim the courts like the 9th are liberal in that they actually banter issues instead of just dismissing them. That is a sign of inflexibility. Gay marriage, tax redistribution for the poor, pro-capital punishment, no abortion [period], no/few personal bankruptcies, health insurance for the privileged, no personal Constitutional protections are all signs of inflexibility.
"I believe that a safety net should be in place to help those who cannot help themselves, but that if you're able, you ought to be supporting yourself. I believe in lassez-faire capitalism."
I like how the conservatives call their Nazi tactics, "lassez-faire capitalism." Don't fool yourself, most of the rest of the industrialized world practices compassionate economics for the masses, America has nothing lassez-faire about ours.
"The joke is that my religion is not "pathetic", as you contend; it does exonerate charity and compassion but not to the extreme you believe it does. My religion also says "God helps those who help themselves"."
Isn't it neat how you can interpret the Bible and religion in your own way, even if you distort the outcome? Maybe that's how priests are able to molest and justify it.
"Hint for you: learn how to edit. Learn how to write. Any jerk can bludgeon people over the head with reams of cut-and-paste; while I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do."
“serioulsy” …..don’t make this a grammar contest.
Truth is, you have failed to disproved 1 element of the post you replied to in quote form. Why drag it over if you're not going to answer some elements within it? What's wrong with my writing and/or editing? If you make an assertion you must support it to be taken seriously by intelligent people. Then, "I am not attributing that label to you, that's what you do." Bahahahaha....I'm not saying that car is red, but it is red. If you say that that's what I do, then you are labeling me.
"And that's why I posted what I said above--I don't bother to read most of your long-winded posts because they're usually nothing but hundreds or thousands of words of cut-and-paste, and as I said they are either 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant...and I stand by that."
You said that, so should I claim you are redundant, or just ignore your posts that are exclusively Ad Hominem? Why reply with quote box if you fail to address any content?
"Your reply to my previous post followed the same ratio."
Your non-reply without any excuse but that you are unable to reply due to lack of grammatical/ educational ability was also repeated.
Now, to bring some intelligence into this conversation in regard to your $20 phrase I will submit:
“An explanation is in order as to what the political terms "left" and "right" actually mean, properly used. The terms originate from the seating arrangement used by the French Parliament around the time of the Revolution of 1789. Those parliamentarians who sat on the right side of the chamber were the "conservatives" of the era, that is, those who sided with the "establishment" which, at that time, consisted of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the established Catholic theocracy. Those who sat on the left were the radicals of their day who opposed the interests of the king, the aristocrats and the clerics.”
What I expect from you is, “Look, another liberal citing the French.” Ed, shiny keys….
“In the eighteenth century, to be a radical or to be a "leftist" meant that one generally sympathized with the basic ideas of the Enlightenment- individual liberty, republican government, separation of church and state, anti-militarism, lassez faire economics and opposition to hereditary titled privilege. Of course, these ideas should be nothing new to most Americans as they were included in the ideology of what is now called "classical liberalism" that guided the so-called "founding fathers" and were written into historic American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
Still mostly true today.
I won’t go on, as I think the shiny keys have already distracted Ed, or possibly the ice cream truck’s music, but this article is interesting, and the author claims to a product of both sides of philosophy. He rejects the notion that a person must subscribe to ALL philosophies of 1 given party, which is a philosophy absent with most modern-day Republicans.
Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?
Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?
Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?
Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down
Toddster “Why not? You aren't seriously suggesting that the Great Depression had ANYTHING to do with Hoover? Insider trading, leveraged stock purchases based on promissory notes backed by worthless paper is what caused it. So go on, tell us what happened as a result of Hoover's policies? ”
I/m Back
Then I write a long reply posting 3 sources and quotes.
Toddster
A "surplus is a positive thing"? Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right? Welfare "kickstarts the economy"? Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right? Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down
After saying that Hoover had nothing to do with the Great Depression, is this the best you can do? Address the Hoover issue.
“A "surplus is a positive thing"?”
When the government has had a surplus, the economy is much healthier.
“Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?”
So to be abstract is the best you can do?
“Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?”
Absolutely. The money is spent immediately, which moves the economy. The entire reason for lowering the interest rate to 40+ year lows was to speed up a sluggish economy, right? OK, so throwing money into the economy via taxation of the rich is the way the economy gets revitalized.
“Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?”
Communism and socialist Capitalism are worlds apart, unless you’re talking to a conservative American.
“Please stop using communist economics students as sources. Not even worth the effort to shoot down”
Communism is where the government controls the means of production of everything. To suggest, as I did, that we increase taxes a couple of percentage points and redistributing them to the poor doesn’t even suggest a Communistic approach. A true Communist would probably be offended to suggest that Socialist Capitalism mirrors Communism in the remotest of ways.
As for effort, if you can’t lie, Todd, you don’t want to research it. You just hope to grab a few cheerleaders along the way in replacement for having to actually research or attempt to intelligently respond to my assertions.
As for effort, if you can’t lie, Todd, you don’t want to research it. You just hope to grab a few cheerleaders along the way in replacement for having to actually research or attempt to intelligently respond to my assertions.
Don't need to. I have a degree in this sh*t. I've studdied it for years and I am continuing to study it in my Santa Clara Masters program. Asking what Hoover had to do with the great Depression is like asking what Babe Ruth had to do with the invention of the baseball bat! As stated earlier your "research" is so laughable and trite that it simply does not merit response. Find a REAL argument involving Hoover in the Great Depression, which was caused by unregulated market manipulation, and I'll reply. But you won't, because it doesn't exist. Thank you for playing, you've been a wonderful audience. Go read a book.
"Don't need to. I have a degree in this sh*t. I've studdied it for years and I am continuing to study it in my Santa Clara Masters program."
Oh, well then we'll just move out of the way and let you be the authority, even though you can't remember your age. Show off; if someone asks a question about the courts/law, I love to show off my education.
"Asking what Hoover had to do with the great Depression is like asking what Babe Ruth had to do with the invention of the baseball bat!"
Uh, Hoover was US President as it was occurring, so that's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying Joe Montana had nothing to do with the 49ers success during their heyday.
"As stated earlier your "research" is so laughable and trite that it simply does not merit response."
You are known for being a coward here, Todd, so this doesn't surprise me.
"Find a REAL argument involving Hoover in the Great Depression, which was caused by unregulated market manipulation, and I'll reply."
We have an argument that I initiated as support for another argument, you bit, I answered and you refuse to address the issues/cites I've supplied. Just ignore it if you can't finish.
Also, the unregulated market causing the market to crash theory, hence the Great Depression was YOUR argument, why should I support it? You made the assertion; you provide the support to your argument that, with your inference, the Great Depression was essentially solely caused by unregulated market manipulation. Todd, are you that inarticulate to not realize that you must support assertions that you introduce? I hope you're never on trial, as you will turn to the prosecutor to defend your arguments, and feel as though you won if they refuse to support them.
"But you won't, because it doesn't exist. Thank you for playing, you've been a wonderful audience. Go read a book."
You are acquiescing, not me. I read books, but I'm looking for book covers; know where I can find some?
[This message has been edited by I'm Back (edited 07-01-2004).]
Communism is where the government controls the means of production of everything. To suggest, as I did, that we increase taxes a couple of percentage points and redistributing them to the poor doesn’t even suggest a Communistic approach. A true Communist would probably be offended to suggest that Socialist Capitalism mirrors Communism in the remotest of ways.
I have a quick question regarding this.
A communist government controls "production" of everything.
When the fed raises and lowers the interest rate... what exactly are they "controling?"
Would it or would it not be "effectivly" controling the production of every single factory and finincially driven institution, from the baby bottle factory to credit cards to long term (housing) loans in the US?
you are known for being a coward here, Todd, so this doesn't surprise me.
Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".
Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".
[3 pages, 1,256 words. 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant.]
I hate to tell you this, but your bloviation has only gotten worse. I seem to have noticed a couple of personal insults while I was selecting the text, so I could paste it to Word, so I could find out how much bandwidth you'd wasted with your latest post, but I didn't really notice. You see, I have better things to do with my time than bother to sift through a three-page-post in which you didn't bother to use more than one quote tag, which is yet more cut-and-paste from leftist web sites which are about as credible as the National Enquirer.
Your post in this thread wherein you list the relative merits of Bush and Clinton is full of distortions and outright lies. (They are not your distortions and outright lies, as you cut and pasted them from someplace else.) Every perfidious act that text accuses Bush of--every one!--can only be seriously made by someone who is so blinded by hatred for Bush and his administration that they are incapable of recognizing the facts when they are presented.
Someone brought up those very points in another thread on this forum, and they were answered by several Bush supporters. I'm not particularly interested in typing out, again, a point-by-point rebuttal to them--the people who are not blinded by hatred for Bush already understand that, for example, "first president in history to enter office with a criminal record" is just liberal hyperbole...and the people who say, "Yeah! Yeah!" to that leftist tripe will not listen to any explanation that mitigates their outrage.
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: What's wrong with my writing and/or editing?
The length is what's wrong. I don't think I've ever seen you make a point cogently and quickly; like any lawyer the instant your viewpoint is challenged you attempt to bury the challenger in a torrent of propaganda.
You are totally incorrect in your views of conservatism. You are so incredibly wrong that I don't see the point in trying to explain to you WHY you are wrong; you will not believe me. What you call "inflexibility" and "intolerance" are merely the typical liberal Democrat party-line definitions of conservatism. I could probably write a post long enough to have come from you on the subject of why conservatism is NOT inflexible and intolerant, but again, you would dismiss it...so why should I bother?
You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections. The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy. EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT
Greenspan lowered interest rates throughout all the years of the Clinton presidency. He did that to keep the economy from stagnating. Lower interest rates=cheap money=more money available for capital investment. Higher interest rates=more expensive money=less money available for capital investments. It is no accident that the economy (AFTER the Bush tax cuts by the way) is now booming, and that Greenspan is now contemplating hiking the Fed rate (if he hasn't done so already).
As I said, your posts are 90% wrong, and TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You posted THREE PAGES of JUNK for crying out loud.
Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".
I'm voting "nay" but I expect the Democrats to sue for a recount... ----^---- << dimpled chad emoticon!!!
I hate to tell you this, but your bloviation has only gotten worse. I seem to have noticed a couple of personal insults while I was selecting the text, so I could paste it to Word, so I could find out how much bandwidth you'd wasted with your latest post, but I didn't really notice. You see, I have better things to do with my time than bother to sift through a three-page-post in which you didn't bother to use more than one quote tag, which is yet more cut-and-paste from leftist web sites which are about as credible as the National Enquirer.
Your post in this thread wherein you list the relative merits of Bush and Clinton is full of distortions and outright lies. (They are not your distortions and outright lies, as you cut and pasted them from someplace else.) Every perfidious act that text accuses Bush of--every one!--can only be seriously made by someone who is so blinded by hatred for Bush and his administration that they are incapable of recognizing the facts when they are presented.
Someone brought up those very points in another thread on this forum, and they were answered by several Bush supporters. I'm not particularly interested in typing out, again, a point-by-point rebuttal to them--the people who are not blinded by hatred for Bush already understand that, for example, "first president in history to enter office with a criminal record" is just liberal hyperbole...and the people who say, "Yeah! Yeah!" to that leftist tripe will not listen to any explanation that mitigates their outrage.
The length is what's wrong. I don't think I've ever seen you make a point cogently and quickly; like any lawyer the instant your viewpoint is challenged you attempt to bury the challenger in a torrent of propaganda.
You are totally incorrect in your views of conservatism. You are so incredibly wrong that I don't see the point in trying to explain to you WHY you are wrong; you will not believe me. What you call "inflexibility" and "intolerance" are merely the typical liberal Democrat party-line definitions of conservatism. I could probably write a post long enough to have come from you on the subject of why conservatism is NOT inflexible and intolerant, but again, you would dismiss it...so why should I bother?
You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections. The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy. EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT
Greenspan lowered interest rates throughout all the years of the Clinton presidency. He did that to keep the economy from stagnating. Lower interest rates=cheap money=more money available for capital investment. Higher interest rates=more expensive money=less money available for capital investments. It is no accident that the economy (AFTER the Bush tax cuts by the way) is now booming, and that Greenspan is now contemplating hiking the Fed rate (if he hasn't done so already).
As I said, your posts are 90% wrong, and TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You posted THREE PAGES of JUNK for crying out loud.
I happened to stumble across Dateline last night, or one of those "news" shows.
They were having reaction to Clinton's book from the "women" in his life.
Kathleen Willey was particularly scathing of Clinton because Clinton called her a liar. Actually, he called them all liars. But Paula Jones just laughingly scoffed at him, and Flowers just kind of eye rolled, like yeah, he is believable.
Hey, this should tell you something about Clinton's legacy:
a woman like Paula Jones has more credibility and is less likely to be lying than a former president of the United States.
Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".
“Really? I'm willing to put it to a vote. All those who think I am a "coward" signify by saying "Aye". All those who think I'm Back is a self- egrandizing ass signify by saying, "Nay".”
Just like you should not submit your age/birth date without first checking your driver’s license, you should also not use large words with first ensuring you’re even close to correct with the spelling. Although you’re wrong, you meant to write, ‘aggrandizing.’
So just keep turning to the rating system (now some silly vote) and avoiding the issues, hence coward. Todd, go back and support your Great Depression assertions and let’s get off this name game. I don’t see it happening….. :rolleyess:
I propose that any post that contains the word "bloviate" or any of its derivatives be immediately sent to the trash can. Also "ditto". Just my $.03 worth. You can do better than that.
