Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - So why isn't our President (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=72741)

Jim in CT: Spence, can you please tell me what evidence there is, that liberal economics are a good idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 879517)

Well, looking at the past century of tax increases, debt increases, regulation increases and bloated government...and despite all our current problems...we've still managed to build the most prosperous and successful nation in the history of the modern world.

Can't be all bad.

-spence

You've failed to actually make the connection between "liberal economics" and building "the most prosperous and successful nation in the history of the modern world." If by "liberal economics" we mean Progressive and Keynsian, it could well be said that our strong, conservative foundation has been able to withstand (less and less)the intrusion of liberal economics (tax and spend massively in excess of revenue). And that we built that "most prosperous and successful nation" before, not "despite," our current problems, and that the liberal economic intrusion in the form of "tax increases, debt increases, regulation increases and bloated government" have begun to finally strangle that success. If you track the growth of the National Debt, it really began to grow almost continually and in large quantity with the ascendence of progressive politics. It started out around $75 million with the debt accrued due the Revolutionary War, and was lowered with bumps up and down due to spending on Constitutionally sanctioned Federal actions until somewhere in 1835 it had shrunk to less than $34 thousand. After the costly Civil War and the beginning of progressive political views it started on a gradual then sharp uptick. And by progressive I don't mean Democrat. Both parties have been acting "progressively." Certainly Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were progressives. FDR simply jumped the shark and created progressivism on steroids, which Obama wants to emulate and surpass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 879769)

Obama didn't campaign that America was bad, he was talking about the leadership in Washington.

-spence

he didn't??? I think it's time to relive some quotes :uhuh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& (Post 881520)

Michelle Obama takes separate government jet to get a few hours of extra vacation time in Martha's Vineyard before President arrives (as he uses TWO helicopters and Air Force One for 500 mile journey) | Mail Online

SPENCE will tell you this is ok. HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. WASTED.

AGAIN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
In the long term, I'd bet that it will provide a net-savings.

A DIFFERENCE OF 4 HOURS

$100 freakin thousand dollars.

I hate these people. :smash:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 879794)

Spence, I never said things were simple, nor are my conclusions over simplified. But some things are not as sophisticated as elite liberals want them to be.

What about the non-elite liberals?

Quote:

For example, you cannot spend more than you take in, forever.

No #^&#^&#^&#^& Sherlock.

Quote:

Spence, you are correct, we have been great for the last 100 years,neither liberal ideology nor conservative ideology has prevented that. However, our greatness is now directly threatened by liberal ideology.

Actually, I'd think many economists would argue that conservative intolerance on tax policy is a gigantic threat to our greatness.

Quote:

Here is what's changed...in response to deranged hatred of Bush, the Dempcratic party, at the national level, has endorsed San Francisco-style radical liberalism. The Democratic party has moved 100 miles to the left,and that has happened at precisely the wrong time for our country.

Number three.

Quote:

Our debt has never been $14 trillion, and that's expected to increase to $22 trillion by 2020. That ignores Medicad's $30 trillion shortfall.

Under Reagan our debt had never been 3 trillion before, under Bush 41 it had never been 4 trillion before, under Clinton it had never been 5 trillion before and under Bush 43 it had never been 10 trillion before.

I'm not sure I see the influence of democrat vs republican ideology in this picture.

Quote:

Conservatives recognize that the time for ignoring this is over. Liberals want to continue to kick the can down the road, because liberals know they need to keep mailing out checks to secure votes. Conservatives like Paul Ryan offer solutions to deal with the threat. What do liberals do? Instead of suggesting a better alternative, THEY MAKE A COMMERCIAL SHOWING RYAN PUSHING OLD LADIES OFF A CLIFF. That's YOUR SIDE SPENCE, not mine. Real f-ing productive. Really honest. Are you proud of those commercials? You get a kick out of that?

Never seen 'em.

Quote:

Spence, we are facing the most forseeable, the most predictable, crisis that you can imagine. And one side, your side, continues to demonoze those who dare to say "I think we should address this...". One side, your side, frames the debate in terms of class warfare, instead of focusing on the facts. Why? Because it's easier to blame the boogeyman (the rich) than it is to say that we all need to sacrifice.

It's interesting that the Reagan generation of Republicans is just as responsible as Democrats for our fiscal issues, yet conservatism is still as pure as a spring flower in your eye. The Right uses class warfare just as much as the Left. The facts neither bolster or admonish either position.

But I agree that all need to sacrifice. Social programs will need to be cut and the wealthy will need to pay a bit more than the historic low taxes they pay today.

Quote:

Liberalism is a complete, total mental disorder....Somehow, liberals believe thatthe solution is to spend more. Spence, I hate to break it to you, but you cannot dig your way out of a hole.

Funny, perhaps a solid 75% of the country is influenced somewhat by what they see as positive liberal positions and you think it's a mental disorder? I think you're watching too much Hannity and listening to too much Savage. Try to think on your own for once.

-spence

Aren't ignore lists great?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 881575)

Actually, I'd think many economists would argue that conservative intolerance on tax policy is a gigantic threat to our greatness.

"Intolerance"? How about disagreement? Is to disagree the same as to not tolerate? Are "conservatives" supposed to tolerate tax policies they think are wrong? It's apparent that so-called conservatives and whatever is the so-called monicker of their opponents have a gigantic difference in view of what is our greatness.

Under Reagan our debt had never been 3 trillion before, under Bush 41 it had never been 4 trillion before, under Clinton it had never been 5 trillion before and under Bush 43 it had never been 10 trillion before.

I'm not sure I see the influence of democrat vs republican ideology in this picture.

So what ideology do you see the influence of in this picture? Is there the influence of "conservative intolerance to tax policy" in this picture? Or do the administrations all have in common that they spent more than they took in--REGARDLESS of whether they raised or lowered taxes? There seems, to me, to be a SPENDING problem in common to all administrations, not a taxing problem.

It's interesting that the Reagan generation of Republicans is just as responsible as Democrats for our fiscal issues, yet conservatism is still as pure as a spring flower in your eye. The Right uses class warfare just as much as the Left. The facts neither bolster or admonish either position.

So you got all the monickers in play here--"conservatism," "Republicans," "Democrats," "Right," "Left." And they're ALL equally responsible for our fiscal "issues."

No #@&<#@&<#@&< Sherlock (as you responded to Jim in CT).

But are they responsible in the same way? Are there no differences? And if not, what is our vote for? How does the "Right use class warfare just as much as the left"? Do ALL the facts neither bolster nor admonish either position? And what is "pure" Conservatism, and will there be no stopping the growth of the Federal debt regardless if Conservatives/Republicans/Rightists or Liberals/Democrats/leftists are elected to solid majorities? And if that's true, could there be another monicker that might be applied to both sides that is a problem--Progressive? The Central government has grown in a progressive manner regardless of which other monicker has been in power. "Pure" Conservatism, if that is original Constitutionalism, might be the antithesis to this growth.

But I agree that all need to sacrifice. Social programs will need to be cut and the wealthy will need to pay a bit more than the historic low taxes they pay today.

-spence

And when"all," excluding, of course, the 50% who don't pay Fed income tax sacrifice and the wealthy pay a bit more taxes, and the debt is paid and the budget is balanced, will we then not have to sacrifice and will the wealthy's "bit more" taxes be reduced?