Optimist: Wish I Could Be One

[Mad_Cabbie]

There are sea changes that alter the course of history...and not for the better:

1. Woodrow Wilson discarding the Constitution

2. FDR changing the relationship between the people and its government

3. Carter ensconcing the world leader in terrorism in power.

4. Obama supporting radical Islam.


Chew on those for a while.....

A while? What for - you offered a hastily concocted opinion that really does not require me to tap the grey matter all the much.

How did Obama support radical Islam?

Moreover, how did this imagined 'support' alter the course of history? You cannot actually believe that, PC, right? You have to be yanking my fuzzy dice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are sea changes that alter the course of history...and not for the better:

1. Woodrow Wilson discarding the Constitution

2. FDR changing the relationship between the people and its government

3. Carter ensconcing the world leader in terrorism in power.

4. Obama supporting radical Islam.


Chew on those for a while.....

A while? What for - you offered a hastily concocted opinion that really does not require me to tap the grey matter all the much.

How did Obama support radical Islam?

Moreover, how did this imagined 'support' alter the course of history? You cannot actually believe that, PC, right? You have to be yanking my fuzzy dice.

Compare the fate of America-leaning Middle East rulers before and after Obama.

And, open your eyes.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Google "obama muslim brotherhood". Read, then come back here.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

There are sea changes that alter the course of history...and not for the better:

1. Woodrow Wilson discarding the Constitution

2. FDR changing the relationship between the people and its government

3. Carter ensconcing the world leader in terrorism in power.

4. Obama supporting radical Islam.


Chew on those for a while.....

A while? What for - you offered a hastily concocted opinion that really does not require me to tap the grey matter all the much.

How did Obama support radical Islam?

Moreover, how did this imagined 'support' alter the course of history? You cannot actually believe that, PC, right? You have to be yanking my fuzzy dice.

Compare the fate of America-leaning Middle East rulers before and after Obama.

And, open your eyes.

PC, my eyes are opened and I am using THEM instead of my ears, try it sometime.

Let me ask you one more time, how did Obama have a hand in supporting or promoting radical Islam?

After you're done proving that he supported it - kindly point out how it altered the course of history.

Thanks.


PC, when we talk about specific issues and avoid "the list" of heinous crimes that the Negro-in-chief has perpetrated upon us, it soon becomes abundantly apparent that you are only offering up an opinion; twisted half-truths, convoluted by the prism of your own political leanings.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Google "obama muslim brotherhood". Read, then come back here.

^^^ Homework? No thanks. I have well enough to do with out jumping through hoops like a trained seal, but thanks anyway.

Maybe you could just make your point and stop being an apathetic tree sloth?

 

[Toronado3800]

"How was the Reagan deficit spending different...."

He purchased the termination of the greatest threat to civilization at the time....the 'Evil Empire.'
He reversed the gains that FDR had given them.

I think we agree on the benefits of deficit spending. And sounds crazy but the defjcit as a percentage of GDP is more important than just the number.

We have had the discussion about "giving" eastern europe to the soviets in 45 before. I think I said I would have been scared of war with the red army then. And at was it you or Crusader Frank who wished Patton got his way?

Either way, Reagan was interesting. Not very Conservitave in many ways but it seems being a govenor does that to some Republicans.

Curious, do you think we should reign in the deficit spending now or dump more into the military or power plants and infrastructure? I admit I wouldn't necessarily be giving out cell phones. What do ya think?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You know the country is in trouble when the average American Male knows more about their favorite sports team than the Constitution and pays almost NO attention to what the elected officials are doing in Washington.

Just remember when it all burns down that we can succeed from the Union and reinstate a Constitutional Republic.

I see, you guys lose a couple of elections to an (Eeek!) Dem and you want to secede?

Get a grip....

Learn to read.
I said "when it all burns down" THEN we can do this.

There is no difference between George Bush and Barack Obama. In fact, there isn't much difference between Dick Cheney and Joe Biden either if you look into their pasts. Why don't you stop looking at their political labels and just start looking at what they actually do.

I don't "cheer" for one side or the other like its some meaningless Major League sports team. I take it all a bit more seriously that that.

I see, It's all going to burn down? Like I said - get a grip.


Really? No difference? Not really sure your right about that one.

Dubbya got us embroiled in two very expensive wars and still could not get his man.

If our troops were simply all brought home during the Bush administration, as the liberals wanted, Bin Laden would still be plotting terrorist strikes on the United States today.

 

[Mad Scientist]

One thing I've noticed about TV watchers is that they need to have their info spoon fed and explained to them.

Read something? Do research? Nope. Just tell me which side to cheer for and I'm there!

Info must be presented to TV watchers like this:

Republican vs. Democrat
Black vs White vs Brown vs Yellow
American League vs National League
USA vs Any Other Country
Pro Gun vs Anti-Gun
Pro Abortion vs Anti-Abortion
Pro Government vs Anti-Government

The average TV watcher sees this and thinks its normal and the height of intellectualism. It's no more normal than thinking that FaceBook is the height of Interpersonal Relationships.

So then what happens is that people come here with their prechosen outlooks and argue just like they see on TV.

"Yes it is! No it isn't! Ok that's all the time we have I wanna' thank our guests for showing up."

What Mad Cabbie said is typical. I tell him a way to become more informed beyond what the TV says and he resists. Do his own research? Become better informed?

No, that's for "tree sloths".

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"How was the Reagan deficit spending different...."

He purchased the termination of the greatest threat to civilization at the time....the 'Evil Empire.'
He reversed the gains that FDR had given them.

There are two pounds of problems in a one pound bag in your statements.

1. Congress controls the pursestrings so whatever was 'purchased' is to Congress's credit, if credit is due...

2. and, secondly, obviously, the threat of Russia was not terminated.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

What Mad Cabbie said is typical. I tell him a way to become more informed beyond what the TV says and he resists. Do his own research? Become better informed?

No, that's for "tree sloths".

Maybe I have already been there and done done that and don't need the Googles to give me good book learn'in?

If indeed that is the case, why do I need do I need to let some "online shmarty-pantz-guy" give me instructions on how to "become more informed beyond what the TV says?" I don't watch, thank you anyway, Mr. Psychic Friends Network.

If I did, I would certainly hope my TV did not actually 'say' anything.

Why did you automatically and quite erroneously assume that I was ignorant about it?

Maybe next time you could, instead of insulting my intelligence, just ask me what I thought about the issue?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are sea changes that alter the course of history...and not for the better:

1. Woodrow Wilson discarding the Constitution

2. FDR changing the relationship between the people and its government

3. Carter ensconcing the world leader in terrorism in power.

4. Obama supporting radical Islam.


Chew on those for a while.....

A while? What for - you offered a hastily concocted opinion that really does not require me to tap the grey matter all the much.

How did Obama support radical Islam?

Moreover, how did this imagined 'support' alter the course of history? You cannot actually believe that, PC, right? You have to be yanking my fuzzy dice.

Compare the fate of America-leaning Middle East rulers before and after Obama.

And, open your eyes.

PC, my eyes are opened and I am using THEM instead of my ears, try it sometime.

Let me ask you one more time, how did Obama have a hand in supporting or promoting radical Islam?

After you're done proving that he supported it - kindly point out how it altered the course of history.

Thanks.


PC, when we talk about specific issues and avoid "the list" of heinous crimes that the Negro-in-chief has perpetrated upon us, it soon becomes abundantly apparent that you are only offering up an opinion; twisted half-truths, convoluted by the prism of your own political leanings.

"OBAMA CUTS U.S. AID TO EGYPT, BUT WHY?
Obama never cut off aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, as Morsi tried to transform Egypt into an Islamist state. So it’s curious that Obama is now scaling back on aid to Egypt."
Obama cuts U.S. aid to Egypt but why Power Line

 

[PoliticalChic]

"How was the Reagan deficit spending different...."

He purchased the termination of the greatest threat to civilization at the time....the 'Evil Empire.'
He reversed the gains that FDR had given them.

I think we agree on the benefits of deficit spending. And sounds crazy but the defjcit as a percentage of GDP is more important than just the number.

We have had the discussion about "giving" eastern europe to the soviets in 45 before. I think I said I would have been scared of war with the red army then. And at was it you or Crusader Frank who wished Patton got his way?

Either way, Reagan was interesting. Not very Conservitave in many ways but it seems being a govenor does that to some Republicans.

Curious, do you think we should reign in the deficit spending now or dump more into the military or power plants and infrastructure? I admit I wouldn't necessarily be giving out cell phones. What do ya think?

"Not very Conservitave in many ways but it seems being a govenor does that to some Republicans."

He became conservative fighting communists in the Screen Actors Guild.

You're incorrect: he was conservative and smart enough to know how to win in the long run.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

"How was the Reagan deficit spending different...."

He purchased the termination of the greatest threat to civilization at the time....the 'Evil Empire.'
He reversed the gains that FDR had given them.

There are two pounds of problems in a one pound bag in your statements.

1. Congress controls the pursestrings so whatever was 'purchased' is to Congress's credit, if credit is due...

2. and, secondly, obviously, the threat of Russia was not terminated.

The communists in the Congress...i.e., the Democrats, took a beating via the Iran-Contra battle in their battle to support Daniel Ortega, and defeat the great man.

1. 1. "The outcome of the constitutional struggle over the Iran-Contra matter would be decided in that exact way: by public judgment of the political clash in Washington. The joint House-Senate committee investigation of the Iran-Contra affair—an investigation Democrats likened to Watergate and hoped would end with Reagan’s impeachment—took a turn President Reagan’s critics had not expected when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North appeared and delivered a devastatingly effective attack on liberals in Congress for their irresponsible meddling in foreign policy. Public opinion decisively shifted in Reagan’s favor, and the liberal dream of driving another Republican president from office died quickly. In other words, the people judged, just as Locke said they should, and judged that Reagan had acted properly, if not necessarily wisely." The Unsolvable Problem of Executive Power Power Line

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"OBAMA CUTS U.S. AID TO EGYPT, BUT WHY?
Obama never cut off aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, as Morsi tried to transform Egypt into an Islamist state. So it’s curious that Obama is now scaling back on aid to Egypt."
Obama cuts U.S. aid to Egypt but why Power Line

Hey, never miss a good opportunity to vilify a POTUS that doesn't have an R next to his name!

"As a result of the review directed by President Obama, we have decided to maintain our relationship with the Egyptian government, while recalibrating our assistance to Egypt to best advance our interests," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

The Obama administration has still not labeled Morsy's removal from office a coup.

Such a designation would require a cut in all but humanitarian aid, a step Obama has been reluctant to take. Last month, the president's top national security advisers recommended he cut most of the aid to the military.

Officials have said Washington wants to maintain its relationship with the Egyptian military and interim government, and the statement noted the United States and Egypt still "have a "longstanding partnership and many shared interests."

Some military aid was suspended and military shipments from the United States were slowed while the review was underway.

The United States will "continue to hold the delivery of certain large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections," Psaki said in the statement.

"The United States continues to support a democratic transition and oppose violence as a means of resolving differences within Egypt," she added.

Oh, my! He TEMPORARILY cut aid to Egypt?



U.S. spending bill restores aid to Egypt, includes $1.5 billion

(Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' new spending bill would restore more than $1.5 billion in military and economic aid to Egypt, which had been largely cut off after Egypt's military ousted President Mohamed Mursi last summer.

The bill includes up to $1.3 billion in military assistance, and $250 million in economic support for Cairo, but ties the funding to the Egyptian government taking steps toward restoring democracy.

U.S. spending bill restores aid to Egypt includes 1.5 billion Reuters


It seems that you conveniently omitted the fact that aid had actually been restored.

That is what happens when you cherry pick - you miss the big picture.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

God deficit spending works. Its like when you make and slend 40,000 a year and you get a credit card with a 5k limit and you max it out. Your expendatures go up 5k over last year.

Now if you build dams and the like or win a war, great. Or get an education on a loan. SOMETHING that will help the nation earn money at a rate higher than the interest on the debt grows.

How was the Reagan deficit spending different than Bush's or Obama's or FDR's? They all pumped the economy for a short term gain.

Note: I've been reading and writing about the economic policies of the FDR Administration for years, so the facts and numbers are ingrained in my head. Verify them for yourself. I'll do a search for pertinent links if you like, but this way we avoid the issue of bias. Check it out for yourself. I assure you, the following will hold up, though you might find sources that differ with my numbers a percentage or two here and there. However, you could start with the UCLA study.

See also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9691134/
________________________________________

First, neither the Reagan nor the Bush Administration asserted the spending of demand-side economics, which is what you're unwittingly talking about.

FDR's infrastructural projects, despite the historical legend, were relatively sparse and sporadic, netting no discernible benefit, as compared to the impact of the across-the-board spending of WWII, which did finally pull the economy out of the Depression, albeit, coupled with another indispensable factor, which I'll touch on momentarily.

The "antitrust suspension-collective bargaining policy" of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which artificially inflated consumer prices and wages for years on average by as much as 23% to 25%, not surprising, dealt a second blow to the GDP, which at one point was roughly 27% below what it should have been. That's a killer number. Even wholesale prices were artificially inflated by nearly 15%. Naturally, unemployment remained staggeringly high throughout FDR's presidency before the war. In fact, unemployment in those industries targeted by the NIRA was nearly 25% higher than what it should have been for years, and don't get me started on FDR's demand-side agricultural policies, which were especially irrational given all the out-of-work in soup lines.

Bottom line: FDR's policies prolonged the Depression for seven to ten years, depending on the estimation of how long the recession, turned into a Great Depression, should have actually been as routinely based on the economy's response to the supply-side policies of the Harding Administration in the face of the recession of 1920.

It was war-time spending on a much grander scale across the board that got the economy moving in the right direction again. So, yes, one can argue that demand-side spending works to stimulate the economy, but what person in his mind would want to be at war on that scale all the time when supply-side economics works all the time, between cyclical corrections, without such spending and mayhem? Moreover, even that doesn't work beyond the short term if the demand-side policies of wage-and-price controls are simultaneously applied.

Though the FDR Administration continued to look the other way for nearly five years after the Court struck down the anti-competition policies of the NIRA, the Justice Department was finally compelled to enforce antitrust law when the government discovered that it couldn't afford to fight the war paying wholesale prices artificially inflated by nearly 15% or more depending on the industry. Hence, enforcement was dramatically increased after years of collusion, and the economy shifted into an even higher gear.

As artificially inflated prices of goods and services returned to rational levels, organized labor was struck a major blow for sue, but then it could no longer monopolize the surplus value of production at the expense of everyone else in need of a job in a GDP-stalled economy. Demand for goods and services grew as prices and unemployment plummeted. Production increased, i.e. supply increased to meet the new demand. Thus, GDP, shackled and rooming in the basement for years, dramatically improved.

Look here. Lose the deficit-charts economics your operating under. Deficit spending and the spending of demand-side economics, let alone as coupled with demand-side wages-and-price controls, are not necessarily the same thing. Deficit spending is borrowed spending that must eventually be paid back with interest! The spending of demand-side economics can be drawn from surpluses, though on the relatively puny scale it would necessarily be in that case would amount to squandered spending. Instead, give those surpluses back to the people to affect the supply-and-demand dynamics of the real economy: now you've got something.

Once again, the supply-side economics of the Reagan Administration and the demand-side spending of FDR and Obama are not the same thing, and in spite of your claim, FDR's and Obama's Keynesianism did not benefit the economy, short-term or otherwise.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot truthfully point to any period in recent history where demand-side spending has ever had any significant impact on the economy other than the vast, across-the-board spending of WWII or, arguably, that of the Eisenhower interstate highway system. Only when it goes toward the production of durable goods across the board or to enduring, universally beneficial infrastructure does it have a discernibly positive impact.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What Mad Cabbie said is typical. I tell him a way to become more informed beyond what the TV says and he resists. Do his own research? Become better informed?

No, that's for "tree sloths".

Exactly, which is my point in this post: Optimist Wish I Could Be One Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Check it out for yourself! But will they? Stay tuned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"OBAMA CUTS U.S. AID TO EGYPT, BUT WHY?
Obama never cut off aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, as Morsi tried to transform Egypt into an Islamist state. So it’s curious that Obama is now scaling back on aid to Egypt."
Obama cuts U.S. aid to Egypt but why Power Line

Hey, never miss a good opportunity to vilify a POTUS that doesn't have an R next to his name!

"As a result of the review directed by President Obama, we have decided to maintain our relationship with the Egyptian government, while recalibrating our assistance to Egypt to best advance our interests," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

The Obama administration has still not labeled Morsy's removal from office a coup.

Such a designation would require a cut in all but humanitarian aid, a step Obama has been reluctant to take. Last month, the president's top national security advisers recommended he cut most of the aid to the military.

Officials have said Washington wants to maintain its relationship with the Egyptian military and interim government, and the statement noted the United States and Egypt still "have a "longstanding partnership and many shared interests."

Some military aid was suspended and military shipments from the United States were slowed while the review was underway.

The United States will "continue to hold the delivery of certain large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections," Psaki said in the statement.

"The United States continues to support a democratic transition and oppose violence as a means of resolving differences within Egypt," she added.

Oh, my! He TEMPORARILY cut aid to Egypt?



U.S. spending bill restores aid to Egypt, includes $1.5 billion

(Reuters) - The U.S. Congress' new spending bill would restore more than $1.5 billion in military and economic aid to Egypt, which had been largely cut off after Egypt's military ousted President Mohamed Mursi last summer.

The bill includes up to $1.3 billion in military assistance, and $250 million in economic support for Cairo, but ties the funding to the Egyptian government taking steps toward restoring democracy.

U.S. spending bill restores aid to Egypt includes 1.5 billion Reuters


It seems that you conveniently omitted the fact that aid had actually been restored.

That is what happens when you cherry pick - you miss the big picture.

Why did Obama try to cut off aid at all?

Have you studied Libya, where Bush had Gaddafi give up his nuclear weapons?



Remember when I suggested that you open your eyes?

Still a good suggestion.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"The outcome of the constitutional struggle over the Iran-Contra matter would be decided in that exact way: by public judgment of the political clash in Washington. The joint House-Senate committee investigation of the Iran-Contra affair—an investigation Democrats likened to Watergate and hoped would end with Reagan’s impeachment—took a turn President Reagan’s critics had not expected when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North appeared and delivered a devastatingly effective attack on liberals in Congress for their irresponsible meddling in foreign policy. Public opinion decisively shifted in Reagan’s favor, and the liberal dream of driving another Republican president from office died quickly. In other words, the people judged, just as Locke said they should, and judged that Reagan had acted properly, if not necessarily wisely." The Unsolvable Problem of Executive Power Power Line

Ultimately the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras.

Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents.

The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead.

In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of DefenseCaspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.

The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.

So, pardoning actual convictions = not guilty? Must be nice to re-write, not only history, but the actual judicial system itself.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Why did Obama try to cut off aid at all?

Have you studied Libya, where Bush had Gaddafi give up his nuclear weapons?

Remember when I suggested that you open your eyes?

Still a good suggestion.

A better suggestion might be for you, yourself, to admit that I just bested you at your own game - I C&P'd you into tapping out.

The review was based upon an investigation into crimes against Egypt's citizens and it was absolutely the correct thing to do.

"If the military continues its repressive tactics, arresting democracy activists and does not hold free and fair elections, the certifications will not be possible and U.S. aid will be cut off," Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for the aid, said in a speech on the chamber floor on Tuesday.

We were sending military aid to Egypt and Egypt was wiping out its citizens left and right.

You would not have done the same?

Interesting....

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

What Mad Cabbie said is typical. I tell him a way to become more informed beyond what the TV says and he resists. Do his own research? Become better informed?

No, that's for "tree sloths".

Exactly, which is my point in this post: Optimist Wish I Could Be One Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Check it out for yourself! But will they? Stay tuned.

Typical of who, me? A rather bogus character charge considering the fact that I have taken you guys to task at every turn in this thread and thus far, all I'm getting for my efforts are snarky comments about Mad Cabbie and virtually no rebuttal to any of the information that I have posted.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the OP's far flung, assertions.