Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Damn Edward. Wish I had some rep to give but I've been out for awhile today. I owe ya.
is the rep thing important? I never paid much attention to it. What do you think?
Damn Edward. Wish I had some rep to give but I've been out for awhile today. I owe ya.
is the rep thing important? I never paid much attention to it. What do you think?
Not all that important, but it is a way of showing appreciation to those who went to the effort to make an especially provocative, pertinent, useful, and intelligent post.
I don't have this worship of the market that you do.
You should have it!! without it you must worship the liberal
I mean, it would be nice if we as consumers punished companies that were the bad actors, but we don't.
like I said pal we drive 10,000 into bankruptcy every month!! Why did you ignore that??
More often than not, companies that are doing the right thing are the ones going out of business because they couldn't econmically compete with the scumbag using illegal alien labor.
.And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly .
What???? Republicans since Jefferson have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate!! Republicans would end the liberal BS instantly if not for independents and Democrats.
.And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly .
What???? Republicans since Jefferson have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate!! Republicans would end the liberal BS instantly if not for independents and Democrats.
Giving up on JoeB because he won't articulate a rationale for why he despises the GOP and American commerce and industry but keeps repeating the frustrating demonization without foundation. Okay, to be fair, his 'foundation' is that he apparently has never been part of a good company. A pity too.
But here, you've given me a very well articulated rationale for disagreeing with me. I still disagree but would give you points in a debate for a good argument.
Why I disagree is that even with a Republican congress for six years of the Clinton administration, the size and scope of government increased. The reform minded GOP, aided by about 30 reform minded Democrats, did manage to give us the closest thing we've had to a balanced budget in decades, but nevertheless, the national debt increased substantially and the government continued to grow in size and reach.
And then with a Republican president and a Republican Congress for six years of the Bush 43 administration, the size and reach of government increased substantially again.
Ever since the Teddy Roosevelt administration, Congress, including Republicans and Democrats, has become increasingly heady with power and ability to use the people's money for its own interests. It started small and inconsequential at first, but the snowball started rolling then and has been gathering speed and mass ever since. If we don't nuke it soon, it will flatten the Republic that the Founders gave us and the America they created will be something very different.
So in that sense, I have to agree with JoeB.
Where I disagree with JoeB is that Republicans are far more likely to try to earn votes by meddling in ways they hope will give more people ability to fish while the Democrats are more likely to try to take fish away from the fisherman and use it to buy votes.
.
Giving up on JoeB because he won't articulate a rationale for why he despises the GOP and American commerce and industry but keeps repeating the frustrating demonization without foundation. Okay, to be fair, his 'foundation' is that he apparently has never been part of a good company. A pity too.
So in that sense, I have to agree with JoeB.
Where I disagree with JoeB is that Republicans are far more likely to try to earn votes by meddling in ways they hope will give more people ability to fish while the Democrats are more likely to try to take fish away from the fisherman and use it to buy votes.
.
Giving up on JoeB because he won't articulate a rationale for why he despises the GOP and American commerce and industry but keeps repeating the frustrating demonization without foundation. Okay, to be fair, his 'foundation' is that he apparently has never been part of a good company. A pity too.
I've been part of great companies. But the same shitty assholes are usually the ones who end up becoming managers. I think in management school they surgically remove your soul...
So in that sense, I have to agree with JoeB.
Where I disagree with JoeB is that Republicans are far more likely to try to earn votes by meddling in ways they hope will give more people ability to fish while the Democrats are more likely to try to take fish away from the fisherman and use it to buy votes.
The problem with that thinking is that commerce is really interested in creating jobs. We had an awesome economy in the Clinton years. And the shitty assholes hated it, because they couldn't fire people when they wanted to, because more often than not, they'd have to pay the new guy more. And they had to give the current guys decent raises so they wouldn't bolt.
The ironic thing was, the assholes were making plenty of money on Clinton's watch. Clinton did a lot of bad stuff, like the ethical stuff and the bad trade treaties.
You see, you've bought into the Club for Greed Bullshit. It isn't investors who create prosperity, it's consumer activity. It's a strong middle class making a decent wage and buying stuff that other people make.
If it any shock that our greatest prosperity as a nation coincided with our greatest level of union membership, and they've both declined at the same slope.
+YOU haven't been part of anything YOU are a fraud..
Giving up on JoeB because he won't articulate a rationale for why he despises the GOP and American commerce and industry but keeps repeating the frustrating demonization without foundation. Okay, to be fair, his 'foundation' is that he apparently has never been part of a good company. A pity too.
I've been part of great companies. But the same shitty assholes are usually the ones who end up becoming managers. I think in management school they surgically remove your soul...
So in that sense, I have to agree with JoeB.
Where I disagree with JoeB is that Republicans are far more likely to try to earn votes by meddling in ways they hope will give more people ability to fish while the Democrats are more likely to try to take fish away from the fisherman and use it to buy votes.
The problem with that thinking is that commerce is really interested in creating jobs. We had an awesome economy in the Clinton years. And the shitty assholes hated it, because they couldn't fire people when they wanted to, because more often than not, they'd have to pay the new guy more. And they had to give the current guys decent raises so they wouldn't bolt.
The ironic thing was, the assholes were making plenty of money on Clinton's watch. Clinton did a lot of bad stuff, like the ethical stuff and the bad trade treaties.
You see, you've bought into the Club for Greed Bullshit. It isn't investors who create prosperity, it's consumer activity. It's a strong middle class making a decent wage and buying stuff that other people make.
If it any shock that our greatest prosperity as a nation coincided with our greatest level of union membership, and they've both declined at the same slope.
What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?
It is always frustrating when you are proven to be wrong.
So you must be constantly frustrated.
just sayin.
Not that all liberals are correct, but neither are all cons.
Leftists recite what the hive instructs, right and wrong aren't concepts that the drones grasp.
SO OBNACIOUS, and ironically so, because it is conservatives who can not think for themselves. They listen to fox says like a christian listens to a minister. Leftists are more independent thinkers, practically by definition. We seek truth whereas cons simply seek solidarity, considered to them as being virtuous, even if at the expense of integrity.
While JoeyB beats the drum of unionism, touting falsehoods is his deal.+YOU haven't been part of anything YOU are a fraud..
Giving up on JoeB because he won't articulate a rationale for why he despises the GOP and American commerce and industry but keeps repeating the frustrating demonization without foundation. Okay, to be fair, his 'foundation' is that he apparently has never been part of a good company. A pity too.
I've been part of great companies. But the same shitty assholes are usually the ones who end up becoming managers. I think in management school they surgically remove your soul...
So in that sense, I have to agree with JoeB.
Where I disagree with JoeB is that Republicans are far more likely to try to earn votes by meddling in ways they hope will give more people ability to fish while the Democrats are more likely to try to take fish away from the fisherman and use it to buy votes.
The problem with that thinking is that commerce is really interested in creating jobs. We had an awesome economy in the Clinton years. And the shitty assholes hated it, because they couldn't fire people when they wanted to, because more often than not, they'd have to pay the new guy more. And they had to give the current guys decent raises so they wouldn't bolt.
The ironic thing was, the assholes were making plenty of money on Clinton's watch. Clinton did a lot of bad stuff, like the ethical stuff and the bad trade treaties.
You see, you've bought into the Club for Greed Bullshit. It isn't investors who create prosperity, it's consumer activity. It's a strong middle class making a decent wage and buying stuff that other people make.
If it any shock that our greatest prosperity as a nation coincided with our greatest level of union membership, and they've both declined at the same slope.
I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,.
And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.
One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.
i dispute the REpublicans are doing it more slowly. Who makes you more in need of a safety net, the guy who puts up the net or the guy who pushes you off the platform to need it?
The problem is the Republicans are Pro-Business at the cost of being anti-worker, anti-consumer and and average guy. And when Romney and his sort destroy those nice union jobs at AmPad and replace them with McJobs at Staples, they make people more dependent on government.
The fact the businessman makes out for now isn't going to help them when those folks finally get democrats with enough balls to say, "Yeah, let's up the taxes on the rich."
As long as you acknowledge that is your opinion unsupportable by any known data in the universe, I will accept it as your opinion.
I will also say that (most) Republicans believe that promoting, encouraging, and helping business succeed is the finest form of compasion and assistance a country can give to the worker, the consumer, and the average guy including the poorest guy. It goes back to the old concept of giving people a fish that once consumed leaves them in need of another fish. And people being people, once they discover that there are free fish to be had, will vote for those who will keep those free fish coming, most especially if they are promised even more or bigger fish. The fact that the fish must be provided by somebody who is working to catch the fish doesn't bother the giver or receiver in the least. Until the fisherman becomes weary of having so many of his fish confiscated and decides it is easier to just not fish and take the free fish.
The Republicans, at least the conservative ones, see the better road as teachong somebody to fish and making it possible and profitable to do so. And because his destiny is then in his hands, and there is profit to be made in fishing, and no profit to be made by not fishing, he will fish and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
The difference between you and me is likely which of these two scenarios is the most caring, compassionate, honorable, profitable, and fairest to all concerned.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
Why is it that so many Conservatives don't see how their party increased the size, budget, and power of Washington. Indeed, some of their most respected leaders have grown government much larger than anything imagined by Carter, Clinton, or Obama. They don't know the truth because they get their news from [wait for it] government, i.e., movement conservatism, which is an interlocking set of doctrinal structures that stretch from think tanks & publishing groups to the blogosphere and FOX News.
Look at Reagan's slice of the Cold War. He used it as a context for globalization, i.e., he used the Soviet Threat to pull developing nations under America's protective wing. In crude terms, he used the IMF to make structural adjustment loans to countries who had valuable assets. Corruptible representatives from those countries would strategically default on those loans, than the U.S. would gain leverage over their markets (i.e., open them to foreign investment). Reagan did all over the glove, especially in South America, Africa, and the Middle East. In each case he grew Washington's size and reach. He didn't just create a Washington big enough to manage the USA; nope, he created one big enough to manage the globe. In simple terms, heincreased the Pentagon's budget so that he could stabilize the 3rd world, so that he could protect and expand necessary markets. The point remains the same: he used the Cold War to grow the size, budget, and power of Washington more than anything his democratic predecessor ever dreamed.
Jimmy Carter lamented American involvement in the Middle East. He didn't think Washington had the resources to stabilize the Muslim world. He simply didn't have that kind of faith in the power of government to control the globe for its energy resources. He launched the most ambitious alternative energy and conservation plan in order to get Washington out of the middle east. He predicted that some day the Washington investment in Petroleum (as opposed to alternatives and conservation) would lead to bankruptcy in places like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
Reagan laughed at Carter. He trusted Big Government's ability to control world events. He didn't seek independence from the middle easy - nope. He convinced CONSERVATIVES that Washington could control and stabilize the middle east. He doubled down on the region, increasing American bases tenfold. And he made sure that the military investment in the middle east was severed from the cost of oil, so that the market would not send the wrong price signals, causing investments to flow into alternative fuels. Reagan convinced his loyal, obedient conservatives that Washington was competent enough to police the globe.
And then comes George W Bush. He convinced conservative voters that Washington was powerful enough to rebuild the greater middle east. Washington can't run a laundromat, yet conservatives gave it the power to change the way the muslim world lives. As if Washington was powerful and competent enough to force Islam into western modernity.
Watch what happens when the GOP re-takes Washington next January. Next stop Iran. They don't want a Washington big enough to control the 50 states, nope - they want a Washington big enough to control whole other continents.
Listen, I would love to save the world and spread utopian freedom to everyone. But I don't trust government to do such big things. I believe if you give government a concentrated lever of power, than you increase the chances that a fallible bureaucrat will misuse that power. This is why I don't want the power to exist in the first place. Because once you create a government agency - around the weapons industry - that agency begins to grow and feed only itself. It becomes a self perpetuating budget drag where parasitic special interests form and rot the taxpayers wallet from the core.
The Cold War and the War on Terrorism grew Washington's power more than anything ever imagined by the Left. Bush (and Obama, Bush junior) used the War on Terrorism to create the largest, most expensive, most secretive bureaucracy ever - the Department of Homeland Security, which is growing beyond control. A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com
The problem with the original poster is that he doesn't realize that his party has expanded the power of Washington more than any in history. He needs to turn off talk radio and take university course in how the Cold War and War on Terrorism put Washington on steroids. If he cared about small government, he would puke every time Reagan's name was mentioned. He would go back to the old isolationist conservatives who opposed the big liberal world improvers, FDR and Truman.
Until the OP sees the difference between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan, we are in terrible shape.... (because he votes)
Why is it that so many Conservatives don't see how their party increased the size, budget, and power of Washington.
i dispute the REpublicans are doing it more slowly. Who makes you more in need of a safety net, the guy who puts up the net or the guy who pushes you off the platform to need it?
The problem is the Republicans are Pro-Business at the cost of being anti-worker, anti-consumer and and average guy. And when Romney and his sort destroy those nice union jobs at AmPad and replace them with McJobs at Staples, they make people more dependent on government.
The fact the businessman makes out for now isn't going to help them when those folks finally get democrats with enough balls to say, "Yeah, let's up the taxes on the rich."
As long as you acknowledge that is your opinion unsupportable by any known data in the universe, I will accept it as your opinion.
I will also say that (most) Republicans believe that promoting, encouraging, and helping business succeed is the finest form of compasion and assistance a country can give to the worker, the consumer, and the average guy including the poorest guy. It goes back to the old concept of giving people a fish that once consumed leaves them in need of another fish. And people being people, once they discover that there are free fish to be had, will vote for those who will keep those free fish coming, most especially if they are promised even more or bigger fish. The fact that the fish must be provided by somebody who is working to catch the fish doesn't bother the giver or receiver in the least. Until the fisherman becomes weary of having so many of his fish confiscated and decides it is easier to just not fish and take the free fish.
The Republicans, at least the conservative ones, see the better road as teachong somebody to fish and making it possible and profitable to do so. And because his destiny is then in his hands, and there is profit to be made in fishing, and no profit to be made by not fishing, he will fish and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
The difference between you and me is likely which of these two scenarios is the most caring, compassionate, honorable, profitable, and fairest to all concerned.
What a pile of self righteous manure. Conservatives believe in teaching? Give me a fucking break.
Conservatives believe in punishment...PERIOD. There is never a single penny of human capital in any of their solutions. Conservatives idea of teaching people to swim is to throw them in the river, the ones that survive are 'taught'
Why is it that so many Conservatives don't see how their party increased the size, budget, and power of Washington.
of course that is perfectly idiotic. Republicans, most of whom are conservative, have been for reduced or limited government since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. This is why for example they have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newts passed in the House and fell one vote short in the Senate. Do you know what our debt would be today were in not for the dastardly Democrats?
Conservatives idea of teaching people to swim is to throw them in the river, the ones that survive are 'taught'
Conservatives idea of teaching people to swim is to throw them in the river, the ones that survive are 'taught'
too stupid but perfectly absolutely liberal. Red China just switched to saintly beautiful Godly capitalism and instantly ended centuries of liberal en masse starvation. Did you think it was fun to slowly starve to death as long as it was at the hands of liberal bigots ?? You're a moral bigot. You imagine yourself to be so sensitive wonderful and superior when in reality you are the grim reaper, but far too slow to know you've been brainwashed.
Why is it that so many Conservatives don't see how their party increased the size, budget, and power of Washington.
of course that is perfectly idiotic. Republicans, most of whom are conservative, have been for reduced or limited government since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. This is why for example they have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newts passed in the House and fell one vote short in the Senate. Do you know what our debt would be today were in not for the dastardly Democrats?
You are obtuse. Reagan created as much debt in 8 years as all the previous president...COMBINED.
Paul O'Neill - George Bush's first Treasury Secretary
The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.
"Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand," says Suskind. "He says, 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' O'Neill is speechless."
"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."
Did he think it was irresponsible? "Well, it's for sure not what I would have done," says O'Neill.
