If repubs can never come up with specific policy examples of their party helping the...

[Boss]

Basically, everything in the Newsweek article confirms my point and refutes your own. Keep in mind, the "land ownership" issue hasn't been an issue for almost 200 years, since most of America became settled. You are harkening back to a time when land was essentially free for the taking. If you could clear off the Native Americans (usually by killing them) and fence it in, the land was yours. Obviously, the wealthy few could afford to do this better than the average Joe. However, note that their solution wasn't centralized government planning and it promoted individual liberty.

I want to specifically address your last sentence, because I think this is the core of your personal belief system about the policies you support and the perception of the policies you think I support:

... the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

When we talk about "the government" it isn't some glorious magical goose which lays golden eggs. The government has no means of earned income whatsoever. It doesn't produce or sell anything of it's own accord. Every dime the government has is contributed in the form of taxation, tariffs, fees, etc., from the individual. The government extrapolates this money from the individuals who earn it, and then they appropriate the money to various needs.

Now there are some things that are general in nature, which the government is obliged to provide via the Constitution, like military protection. But the "progressive" movement has changed the intent of things like the commerce clause and terms like "general welfare" in order to use more and more of the resources to fund things that aren't provided for under the Constitution and never were intended to be by the Founding Fathers.

We've now come upon a generation (or two) of morons who believe that our happiness is achievable by laying our problems at the feet of the 'golden goose' and expecting it to be taken care of, so long as we beat away the evil republicans who simply wish to see people suffer.

Weird the Founders CHOSE a STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T with the US Constitution over the limited states rights Articles

The Founders on Taxation, Redistribution, and Property

While many who quote the founders highlight their emphasis on liberty, it is important to note that they were also concerned with equality, or at the least they worried about dramatic inequalities. Consider some of the leading lights of the American Founding.
Noah Webster, the same Webster who compiled the first American dictionary, was an ardent champion of the Constitution. In the fall of 1787, he published a pamphlet titled “Leading Principles of the Constitution” in which he provides a detailed discussion of the proposed document. Interspersed in that discussion is an argument about the merits—nay, the essential nature—of property in a republic. As Webster puts it, real power consists in nothing other than the ownership of property. In fact, the history of England is largely a story of the struggle of the people against the nobility, and “we observe that the power of the people has increased in an exact proportion to their acquisitions of property.” In fact, “a general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the whole basis of national freedom.”

Webster argues that the traditionally asserted bulwarks of freedom—freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, as well as bills of rights—“are all inferior considerations, when compared with a general distribution of real property among every class of people.” Consolidation of real property, through inheritance laws and entailments, are “more dangerous to liberty and republican government, than all the constitutions that can be written on paper, or even than a standing army.”


Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the proposed constitution for a variety of reasons, most of which centered on the fear that the plan provided too many avenues for the consolidation of power.

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property



Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers



"The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of this country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." TJefferson

Weird... the very thing the Antifederalists warned against, and the Federalists assured would never be an issue, is the very thing progressive liberals want to do today. The Bill of Rights were specifically adopted to prevent powerful overreach of central government. The Antifederalists were afraid the states would lose all power over the years, and the Federalists said; Nonsense, that is the beautiful thing about Federalism, the Federal government is limited and restricted by these enumerated powers and the states, along with the people, retain all the rest.

 

[Freewill]

Your point only make Obama look that much worse. Anyone should be able to improve upon a bad economy. Imagine if the economy would have been doing really well don't you think improvement would be hard? Obama's administration made the 8 percent claim in UE which never came true because they don't know what they are talking about or just out right lie. In every recession, prior to this one, the recovery has been as strong as the recession itself. Obama's policies not only slowed the economy making it the weakest and longest recovery in history it drove our children into debt they may never, will never, repay.

No, Obama had the chance to look really good but what he did has caused you and him to brag about things that just ain't true.

False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers have. Shocking

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP hole and have refused to help push the car out of the ditch or to even get out of the car. Recovery after 7 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies? Why would a recovery be needed? lol

I suggest you go into the fertilizer supply business.

Consider that the economy and the country was doing pretty well up to when? 2006, then a disaster occurred to which we have yet to recover. The Democrats took over both houses and pretty much ignored Bush. Ignored the warning about the housing market, not only ignored made the coming problem MUICH worse. And the reason I think they did it was to ensure a democrat win. So after two years of their tyrannical rule Obama wins and for a period of time the democrats did EXACTLY what they wanted to do. What did Obama do as the country burned? He gave the country a colonoscopy with Obamacare. Bush ignored nothing. He bailed out GM yet I doubt you give him credit because he didn't give them enough money nor did he screw their stock holders.

As for recoveries. The economy is going to grow at a certain rate pretty much regardless of want the government does, that is if they pretty much leave the economy alone. So Bush inherits a recession from Clinton. He has the wind down from Y2K. He has the DotCom crash and 9/11. Even with all of that does the economy tank? No, Bush gave people back their money and the economy recovered. back to where it should have been. On the other hand there was a deep recession in 2008, no doubt. But instead of recovery we get Obama's policy that anything can be bought and he throttles the recovery. History proves me correct, propaganda is your only ally.

 

[mudwhistle]

The stimulus failed by the standards the administration set for it. Period. That is fact. The economy has had its worst growth post recession ever. That is a fact. Both of those things are directly traceable to Democrat policies enacted when Dems had a lock on Congress and the WH. That is a fact.
Dems don't do well with facts.

they will never admit it is their party strangling (us the people), our country and businesses.
they just won't come into REALITY if they did they'd have to admit they support a failing strategy and policies

lol, Yeah, GOP/conservative policies worked so well *shaking head*

Haven't had many implementations of Republican policies since Newt was the Speaker. Got a surplus because of it.
Just sayin....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

President Obama's economy. Breaking down all those job creation charts and monthly job numbers, what kind of trickle up 'job creation' did we find?













Dear Class of 2014: We regret to inform you that the nation's job market continues to force college graduates to take jobs they're overqualified for, jobs outside their major, and generally delay their career to the detriment of at least a decade's worth of unearned wages. Good luck on your job search.

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, and with the lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators', Dubya lost over 1 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND 5+ million more in 2009? And the socialist Obama has had 10+ million created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010?


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

You heard it here folks, going back to those "job numbers" Dad2Three believes under Obama - job that break down to an increase in part time employment, and college grads working low income jobs that don't require a degree is actually an improvement on job creation and this economy.

 

[Ernie S.]

If you like your health plan, you can keep it.

 

[Stephanie]

President Obama's economy. Breaking down all those job creation charts and monthly job numbers, what kind of trickle up 'job creation' did we find?














Dear Class of 2014: We regret to inform you that the nation's job market continues to force college graduates to take jobs they're overqualified for, jobs outside their major, and generally delay their career to the detriment of at least a decade's worth of unearned wages. Good luck on your job search.

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies, and with the lowest sustained tax burden on the 'job creators', Dubya lost over 1 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years AND 5+ million more in 2009? And the socialist Obama has had 10+ million created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010?


DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair

You heard it here folks, going back to those "job numbers" Dad2Three believes under Obama - job that break down to an increase in part time employment, and college grads working low income jobs that don't require a degree is actually an improvement on job creation and this economy.

no kidding, that's some scary stuff and the reason this country is falling into third world status.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird... the very thing the Antifederalists warned against, and the Federalists assured would never be an issue, is the very thing progressive liberals want to do today. The Bill of Rights were specifically adopted to prevent powerful overreach of central government. The Antifederalists were afraid the states would lose all power over the years, and the Federalists said; Nonsense, that is the beautiful thing about Federalism, the Federal government is limited and restricted by these enumerated powers and the states, along with the people, retain all the rest.

Weird, I thought the federalists won the argument over the anti federalists and adopted the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION? You Klowns 'believe' they
wanted a small, limited states rights Gov't, they gave that up with the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation

 

[Dad2three]

I suggest you go into the fertilizer supply business.

Consider that the economy and the country was doing pretty well up to when? 2006, then a disaster occurred to which we have yet to recover. The Democrats took over both houses and pretty much ignored Bush. Ignored the warning about the housing market, not only ignored made the coming problem MUICH worse. And the reason I think they did it was to ensure a democrat win. So after two years of their tyrannical rule Obama wins and for a period of time the democrats did EXACTLY what they wanted to do. What did Obama do as the country burned? He gave the country a colonoscopy with Obamacare. Bush ignored nothing. He bailed out GM yet I doubt you give him credit because he didn't give them enough money nor did he screw their stock holders.

As for recoveries. The economy is going to grow at a certain rate pretty much regardless of want the government does, that is if they pretty much leave the economy alone. So Bush inherits a recession from Clinton. He has the wind down from Y2K. He has the DotCom crash and 9/11. Even with all of that does the economy tank? No, Bush gave people back their money and the economy recovered. back to where it should have been. On the other hand there was a deep recession in 2008, no doubt. But instead of recovery we get Obama's policy that anything can be bought and he throttles the recovery. History proves me correct, propaganda is your only ally.

OK Bush 'warned' about the housing? WHO had control of the FBI, SEC, HUD, etc again? Which branch?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


2006? DEMS?

Oh you meant Jan 2007 when they took Congress. PLEASE give me the bills they passed that effected Dubya's subprime bubble OR ANYTHING THAT CAUSED THE CRASH?



EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST THE USUAL RIGHT WING CRAP. THE GOP CRASHED THE ECONOMY BUT ARE UPSET OBAMA HASN'T FIXED IT FASTER, AS THEY REFUSE TO GET OUT AND HELP PUSH!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Haven't had many implementations of Republican policies since Newt was the Speaker. Got a surplus because of it.
Just sayin....

Sure, 8 years of Dubya, 6 with a GOP Congress, but Newt had a surplus? Weird, I though thinking people realized it was thanks to Dems/Clinton getting more revenues and cutting the deficit $400+ billion with their '93 omnibus bill EVERY SINGLE GOP voted against?


I mean AFTER Clinton's first surplus, the GOP passed a $700+ BILLION tax cut Clinton had to veto to get 3 more, then Dubya came in and the GOP went to work on US...

 

[Dad2three]

Haven't had many implementations of Republican policies since Newt was the Speaker. Got a surplus because of it.
Just sayin....

Sure, 8 years of Dubya, 6 with a GOP Congress, but Newt had a surplus? Weird, I though thinking people realized it was thanks to Dems/Clinton getting more revenues and cutting the deficit $400+ billion with their '93 omnibus bill EVERY SINGLE GOP voted against?


I mean AFTER Clinton's first surplus, the GOP passed a $700+ BILLION tax cut Clinton had to veto to get 3 more, then Dubya came in and the GOP went to work on US...

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the answer to the OP is obvious.

The OP has no freaking clue what he is talking about and that's why he is confused.

 

[Billy000]

I think the answer to the OP is obvious.

The OP has no freaking clue what he is talking about and that's why he is confused.

How so? Be specific.

 

[Boss]

Weird... the very thing the Antifederalists warned against, and the Federalists assured would never be an issue, is the very thing progressive liberals want to do today. The Bill of Rights were specifically adopted to prevent powerful overreach of central government. The Antifederalists were afraid the states would lose all power over the years, and the Federalists said; Nonsense, that is the beautiful thing about Federalism, the Federal government is limited and restricted by these enumerated powers and the states, along with the people, retain all the rest.

Weird, I thought the federalists won the argument over the anti federalists and adopted the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION? You Klowns 'believe' they
wanted a small, limited states rights Gov't, they gave that up with the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

 

[Dad2three]

You heard it here folks, going back to those "job numbers" Dad2Three believes under Obama - job that break down to an increase in part time employment, and college grads working low income jobs that don't require a degree is actually an improvement on job creation and this economy.

Weird, false premises, distortions and LIES are the only thing right wingers EVER have?

ONCE MORE, AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES, THE US LOST OVER 1+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS (THEN 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009) AND SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM, OVER 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.


Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic


The second thing we should expect to see from Part-Time America is a growing number of part-time jobs since Obama came into office and started passing laws. Here's a graph showing the number of people working part-time for economic reasons since March 2010, the month Obamacare was passed.

Huh, nothing there. In fact, the number part-time workers has fallen in the last four years.

Okay, well, raw numbers can be deceiving. After all, the labor force has declined since 2010. So let's graph these part-time workers as a share of the labor force. Surely that will show a rising line...

.. dang it.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Three years of data just isn't much context. So let's draw back the lens and look at part-time workers as a share of the labor force since, say, 1980...

... and then compare it to the unemployment rate (in RED) since 1980.

Okay, now here's something: Part-time work, as a share of the economy, is historically high. But these graphs don't make the point that Obama, or long-term global economic trends, are driving the rise in non-voluntary part-time work. Instead, the rise of part-time work seem to be 100 percent the creation of economic downturns.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic

 

[Dad2three]

no kidding, that's some scary stuff and the reason this country is falling into third world status.

Yes, 'free markets' and conservative/libertarian policies tend to do that

 

[Dad2three]

Weird... the very thing the Antifederalists warned against, and the Federalists assured would never be an issue, is the very thing progressive liberals want to do today. The Bill of Rights were specifically adopted to prevent powerful overreach of central government. The Antifederalists were afraid the states would lose all power over the years, and the Federalists said; Nonsense, that is the beautiful thing about Federalism, the Federal government is limited and restricted by these enumerated powers and the states, along with the people, retain all the rest.

Weird, I thought the federalists won the argument over the anti federalists and adopted the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION? You Klowns 'believe' they
wanted a small, limited states rights Gov't, they gave that up with the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

Sure, YOUR OPINION against SCOTUS's ruling for a couple hundred years saying I'm right, AND the BIG GOV'T FEDERALISTS, WERE CORRECT!!

 

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

 

[Dad2three]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, you'd be wrong. The Federalists won the fight for a limited Federal government with specific enumerated powers and a Bill of Rights which ensured all other power was controlled by the states and people. You represent what the Anti-Federalists feared and the Federalist said could never happen.

On March 4, 1789, general government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.


The General Welfare Clause provides Congress with a plenary spending power to “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson

ANd you honestly think Jefferson would conclude that allowing half the people to sponge off the hard work of the other half would make the most people happy so that would make welfare alright?

False premises, distortions AND LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite

do you think using annoying fonts adds any gravitas to your arguments?

Comparing us to a third world nation is stupid.

Do you know why we became the most powerful nation in the history of the world? It wasn't because our government forced the most industrious of our citizens to support the least able.

If welfare is such a fabric of our society and the founding fathers intended for the USG to provide it, then riddle me this batman why was it 150 years AFTER the COTUS was ratified before any welfare programs were began?

You of course can not possibly explain that away so back to more large font and name calling for you.