Small Dreams

[TemplarKormac]

There have been government programs since the inception of this nation, TK.

It was the government that purchased the Louisiana Territory and it was a government programs that subsidized the populating of the West. The government subsidized farms, water projects, the railroads, electricity, mining and other programs throughout the 1st century of it's establishment.

That you know about none of this is why you believe in a myth rather than reality.

Government has it's perks yes, but then it has drawbacks. You'd much rather there be only perks, and ignore the drawbacks. I would much rather you stop insulting me now, Derideo, it's obvious you don't have a substantive argument.

"Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

-Ronald Reagan

Also, the first vestiges of Government existed thousands of years ago, beginning with the Ur Nammu, 4060 years ago in 2047 BC. But as far as I know, they didn't rely on entitlement programs to prosper.

Reagan was union organizer, a peacenik, an appeaser, he cut & ran from the terrorists that murdered 200 marines while he funded Al Queda, he was a big spender and he grew the government like never before. He also provided amnesty to illegal aliens. Oh, and as far as those "tax cuts" of his went, he reversed all of them.

The Roman Empire prospered while it relied upon entitlements, TK. Free daily bread and water and circuses for entertainment of the masses.

Are you serious with this? The Roman Empire died because of entitlements, Derideo. Your argument is slowly fading, my friend. But didn't you say you wouldn't bother debating me because I was too convinced of a fantasy? Instead of debating my OP, you attack my perception. Then you attack Reagan while propping Obama and your beloved government entitlements up on a stoop and extolling him/them on high. If you have a real argument, spit it out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It drives liberals crazy to know a Republican helped engineer one of the most prosperous eras in American history.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government has it's perks yes, but then it has drawbacks. You'd much rather there be only perks, and ignore the drawbacks. I would much rather you stop insulting me now, Derideo, it's obvious you don't have a substantive argument.

"Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem."

-Ronald Reagan

Also, the first vestiges of Government existed thousands of years ago, beginning with the Ur Nammu, 4060 years ago in 2047 BC. But as far as I know, they didn't rely on entitlement programs to prosper.

Reagan was union organizer, a peacenik, an appeaser, he cut & ran from the terrorists that murdered 200 marines while he funded Al Queda, he was a big spender and he grew the government like never before. He also provided amnesty to illegal aliens. Oh, and as far as those "tax cuts" of his went, he reversed all of them.

The Roman Empire prospered while it relied upon entitlements, TK. Free daily bread and water and circuses for entertainment of the masses.

Are you serious with this? The Roman Empire died because of entitlements, Derideo. Your argument is slowly fading, my friend. But didn't you say you wouldn't bother debating me because I was too convinced of a fantasy? Instead of debating my OP, you attack my perception. Then you attack Reagan while propping Obama up on a stoop and extolling him on high. If you have a real argument, spit it out.

1. I posted the facts about Reagan that you refuse to acknowledge.
2. Nowhere have I mentioned Obama.
3. The Roman Empire thrived for 500 years with entitlements in place.

As far as making my argument is concerned I already did that once and no, I am not going to do so again because your perception does not jibe with reality. The proof of that is in your last response where you got 3 things completely wrong.

 

[zeke]

You'll live. If you had a rebuttal, you'd have already presented it by now. But with comments like "at least I don't live with my grandmother", it shows me you care a bit too much about who I live with.

Such a raw display of emotion, but no argument.

I have an argument. Did you not read it? You're a fucking hypocrite. That's my argument. And apparently you're a whiner who doesn't take personal responsibility, since you just blamed liberal policies for the situation you're in.

Oh and I wouldn't have known that you live with your grandmother and have no job if you hadn't advertised it on USMB.

"You are a fucking hypocrite" is not an argument. Next!

Well it works pretty well when arguing against a ...........wait for it........ a hypocrite. Like you.

Who is it you think you are? What character have you assigned yourself? Are you nuts?
Get granny her warm milk and make sure you take your meds. Granny to.

Eat right and get plenty of rest. Don't want you to get sick or anything, what with you being such a productive individual and important member of society and all. LMAO again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Reagan was union organizer, a peacenik, an appeaser, he cut & ran from the terrorists that murdered 200 marines while he funded Al Queda, he was a big spender and he grew the government like never before. He also provided amnesty to illegal aliens. Oh, and as far as those "tax cuts" of his went, he reversed all of them.

The Roman Empire prospered while it relied upon entitlements, TK. Free daily bread and water and circuses for entertainment of the masses.

Are you serious with this? The Roman Empire died because of entitlements, Derideo. Your argument is slowly fading, my friend. But didn't you say you wouldn't bother debating me because I was too convinced of a fantasy? Instead of debating my OP, you attack my perception. Then you attack Reagan while propping Obama up on a stoop and extolling him on high. If you have a real argument, spit it out.

1. I posted the facts about Reagan that you refuse to acknowledge.
2. Nowhere have I mentioned Obama.
3. The Roman Empire thrived for 500 years with entitlements in place.

As far as making my argument is concerned I already did that once and no, I am not going to do so again because your perception does not jibe with reality. The proof of that is in your last response where you got 3 things completely wrong.

1. Those are facts yes, but you refuse to acknowledge the good he did for America. You refuse to acknowledge his success but extol any liberal achievement without a second thought. That is a departure from reality buddy.

2. Obama is a more pertinent example.

3. That's nonsense. You never refuted that claim at all.

I however can prove mine:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-7.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

It drives liberals crazy to know a Republican helped engineer one of the most prosperous eras in American history.

Reagan didn't help much at all. Here's how it really happened.

1. The business cycle: one of the worst recessions in history started 6 months AFTER Reagan became president. Once that recession had run its course, the economy was set up for a recovery,

just as always happens because of the natural forces of the business cycle. And they happen with little regard to who is president.

2. Interest rates - Fed interest rate policy drove interest rates to unprecedented levels, done to break the inflation cycle. That tightening policy ended in late 1982, and quickly contributed to turning around the economy. Again, with little regard to who was president.

3. Oil prices - The oil shocks of the late seventies were still depressing the economy through the first couple years of the 80's, but prices turned around and began falling until crude was down to around 10 bucks a barrel in the mid - 80's, and gasoline was down to around 80 cents a gallon. Again, nothing to do with Reagan.

What did Reagan contribute? A massive government stimulus program based on borrowing and spending,

as in running up huge deficits, which, short term, were very stimulative. Borrowing money and pouring it into the economy, without asking anyone to pay it back, whatever else that is,

it is stimulative.

That's the real story.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

It drives liberals crazy to know a Republican helped engineer one of the most prosperous eras in American history.

Please tell us exactly what era you are referring to. And please abide by the dictionary definition of era.

If you are talking about Reagan, he signed into law the ability of banks and mortgage companies to securitize and sell your mortgage off in chunks to strangers in other countries. That was the beginning of the mortgage crisis that occurred in 2007.

Then he ushered in the easier methods of outsourcing for manufacturing to other countries without taxation when importing the goods back into the U.S. (That's called job losses, in case this goes over your head.)

So little boy, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Go outside and play with your plastic Darth Vader sword. The adults here will not miss you.

 

[Plasmaball]

Did I come on too strong?

How long you ever been on welfare?
How m6ch you make an hour?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are you serious with this? The Roman Empire died because of entitlements, Derideo. Your argument is slowly fading, my friend. But didn't you say you wouldn't bother debating me because I was too convinced of a fantasy? Instead of debating my OP, you attack my perception. Then you attack Reagan while propping Obama up on a stoop and extolling him on high. If you have a real argument, spit it out.

1. I posted the facts about Reagan that you refuse to acknowledge.
2. Nowhere have I mentioned Obama.
3. The Roman Empire thrived for 500 years with entitlements in place.

As far as making my argument is concerned I already did that once and no, I am not going to do so again because your perception does not jibe with reality. The proof of that is in your last response where you got 3 things completely wrong.

1. Those are facts yes, but you refuse to acknowledge the good he did for America. You refuse to acknowledge his success but extol any liberal achievement without a second thought. That is a departure from reality buddy.

2. Obama is a more pertinent example.

3. That's nonsense. You never refuted that claim at all.

I however can prove mine:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-7.pdf

You are basing your position on the discredited "trickle down voodoo economics" of the Reagan era? Bartlett wrote that article in 1994 and has subsequently recanted and admitted that Paul Krugman is right.

In 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis fired Bartlett for his outspoken criticism of President George W. Bush.[3]
In 2006, he published Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (ISBN 0-385-51827-7), which is critical of the Bush Administration's economic policies as departing from traditional conservative principles. He compared the second Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."[4]

In August 2009, Bartlett wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in which he attributed the global financial crisis and following recession to George W. Bush and Republicans, whose policies he claimed resulted in an inferior record of economic performance to those of President Clinton.[11] In the same editorial, Bartlett wrote that instead of enacting meaningful healthcare reform, President Bush pushed through a costly Medicare drug plan by personally exerting pressure on reluctant conservatives to vote for the program. Bartlett claimed that because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan and that "y not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan."[11] Bartlett concluded:

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting."[11]​

In his 2009 book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, Bartlett defends Keynesian economic policies, stating that while supply-side economics was appropriate for the 1970s and 1980s, supply side arguments do not fit contemporary conditions.[12]

In a 2013 article for The American Conservative, Bartlett explains that after conducting research for the book, he "came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s," that "we needed Keynesian policies again," and that "no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy's problems than Paul Krugman," a prominent Keynesian economist.[13]

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

Did I come on too strong?

NO, we all love it when someone who lives off of others gripes about those who live off of others.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[JoeB131]

If I were "King for a Day" I would immediately stop all unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamps, free government issued cell phones and all the other free shit the government gives away. Sounds harsh but I'm sure you would be surprised at the large number of people who would find a job someplace doing something to enable them to live. It's easier to just stay home than it is to actually go out to work. Because of it, we have become a nation of slugs and agreeable to live off the free crap the government gives us.

Or they'd riot and bring down the country, which is EXACTLY what they almost did in the 1960's.

 

[koshergrl]

If I were "King for a Day" I would immediately stop all unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamps, free government issued cell phones and all the other free shit the government gives away. Sounds harsh but I'm sure you would be surprised at the large number of people who would find a job someplace doing something to enable them to live. It's easier to just stay home than it is to actually go out to work. Because of it, we have become a nation of slugs and agreeable to live off the free crap the government gives us.

Or they'd riot and bring down the country, which is EXACTLY what they almost did in the 1960's.

Elitist progressive scum did bring down the country. We're living their dream.

Elitist progressive pukes are incapable of discerning the difference between not working while looking for work, and refusing to work while demanding the government pay for your individual housing, food, electricity, and cable television.
The right maintains it is the duty of the FAMILY and local community to support out of work people, until such time as they refuse to do it anymore, whereupon those people either leave and go where they can work, or starve.

It's the way the West was settled. People who for whatever reason were unable to support themselves where they were, picked up and went to the places where they could find work. Usually dangerous work, but that's the way it goes. If you're unemployable in your domicile, then you go where the work is.

I supported my son and his family for some months while he was out of work..he left a decent paying job at my suggestion, because I wanted him closer to me, and I was willing to shoulder the expense until such time as he was able to find a job. He did find a job, he had to roam a bit to find it, and it took some months, and we were VERY poor in those months, but he did it.

That is not living off the government dime, and it is not the same as living off the government dime. Templar living with his grandmother who has chosen to support him as he looks for work is not the same as living off welfare and eterna-unemployment benefits.

 

[zeke]

How is this nation to survive when a bunch of whiny ass cocksuckers like you want to put the blame for your failures as an American and a human being on a President?

As much as I hated George Bush, I never used HIM as an excuse for my shortcomings. You know, like the thread where you blamed Obama for your lack of education and a job.

But then, I am a man and you are a little boy.

Temple to shit, you deleted a few of your posts. Punk ass. The one where you blamed Obama for your failure as a man. I really liked that one.You know the one. The one that prompted my response above. Asshole.