Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
I hope you guys realize that all your hard work is probably being copied and pasted by some industrious kid in various college classes and is being used for reaction papers or mid-terms, maybe even term paper if he really worked at editing a little. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I hope you guys realize that all your hard work is probably being refuted by ScottW who copied and pasted links by some industrious kid in various college classes and is being used for reaction papers or mid-terms, maybe even term paper if he really worked at editing a little. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.
Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.
Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.
Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.
The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.
The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".
What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.
Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.
Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.
Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.
Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.
The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.
The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".
What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.
What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial.
Great summary Jim. I can't see how anyone with common sense
would want to live any other way.
Last edited by The Dad Fisherman; 03-13-2014 at 05:21 AM..
The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.
Yes. But do you know who the biggest recipients for welfare are in this country? Corporations.... .
Sure. Cut government by 20%. Raise taxes on corporations by 10%. Ohhhhhhh wait!!! I'm now a liberal commie for saying we should raise taxes.
See this is unrepairable. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes. But do you know who the biggest recipients for welfare are in this country? Corporations.... .
Sure. Cut government by 20%. Raise taxes on corporations by 10%. Ohhhhhhh wait!!! I'm now a liberal commie for saying we should raise taxes.
See this is unrepairable. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So get rid of corporate welfare. That will, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes on corporations. And also by eliminating various other projects of the Federal Government (cutting government by X%) that will also, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes. Both eliminations will leave a huge surplus of what is now collected in taxes to go toward fiscal responsibility and lowering the debt. And will spur a huge increase of competition in business and productivity in labor. So you'll have the equivalence of your preferred "liberal" taxing method of austerity, yet be true to your "Tea Party" self.
The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system
I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....
the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"
That will be the excuse running up into the election to ensure expectations are set as low as is possible. If the GOP can't articulate their message and simply runs against the ACA they will lose.
Quote:
Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.
Christy isn't a "hard-line economic right winger". He's fiscally conservative but also willing to negotiate. In the eyes of his party that puts him on par with Che Guevara.
Quote:
Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.
Yea, blame TV. It's not about a lack of ideas or collaborative spirit…it's about biased TV coverage
Keep beating that paper tiger.
Quote:
Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.
Who's leapfrogging anything? The GOP has a chance of picking up Senate seats primarily because so many blue states are up for grabs.
Ultimately it comes down to who shows up to vote, and the divisions within the GOP will likely keep many voters at home.
Quote:
Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.
Yes, the bellwether. Give me a break. For all your whining about the quality of news you sure are easily suckered into it.
This district was owned by a single republican for the past 4 decades. Jolly worked for Bill Young and ran as his successor. He was getting beat until outside cash helped him outspend the dem and eek out a narrow victory…that's going to be up for grabs again in November.
Really shivery stuff here.
Quote:
The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.
The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".
The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America. They are offensive to many Republicans. If I was making the odds I'd be looking at how the TP will divide the GOP...
Quote:
What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.
You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason. It's infatuation with contradiction and incoherence. That it's largely a corporate marketing phenomenon seeking not the best ideas but the most disruptive personalities.
The success of Tea Party candidates will likely be the primary factor if Hillary really is beatable or not.
Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.
Serious austerity has crippled many European economies. Federal spending like it or not has a big impact on GDP.
So get rid of corporate welfare. That will, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes on corporations. And also by eliminating various other projects of the Federal Government (cutting government by X%) that will also, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes. Both eliminations will leave a huge surplus of what is now collected in taxes to go toward fiscal responsibility and lowering the debt. And will spur a huge increase of competition in business and productivity in labor. So you'll have the equivalence of your preferred "liberal" taxing method of austerity, yet be true to your "Tea Party" self.
This is a challenge in a global economy where domestic industries are competing against companies often heavily subsidized by foreign governments. We're shackled by short-termism and shareholder value when China is working on decades long business plans.
Serious austerity has crippled many European economies.
-spence
What do you consder Serious austerity cuts, and what were the European cuts?
A 10% cut would no more then knock out waste and I doubt it would
cause them to miss a beat.
Meantime Obama wants our citizens to cut our budgets. As he statedto a group of young people, they could cut some of the $300 monthly costs for their cells/computers/ and cable in order to help pay for their Unaffordable Health Care!
Talk about a hypocrite.
This is a challenge in a global economy where domestic industries are competing against companies often heavily subsidized by foreign governments.
If we remove government subsidy and selective regulations, which favor preferred companies, from corporate structure and budgets, AND remove government "welfare" for labor (pro-labor regulations by NLRB), we will be much closer to a free competitive market. That would create an interesting contest between global government subsidized business and free market U.S. business.
The peculiar process of raising corporate costs imposed by government giving labor the power to inflict those costs, but then reimbursing corporations with corporate welfare merely creates an inflationary rise in the "economy" and a fake rise in GDP. The only winner being a more powerful and controlling government.
Remove the cost of corruptive manipulating government middle man, let market forces determine costs and prices, and I'd put my bet on U.S. corporations beating the socks off of subsidized and controlled foreign corps.
We're shackled by short-termism and shareholder value when China is working on decades long business plans.
It's messy.
-spence
The real short-termism is constant ad hoc government intrusion into and manipulation of the market for perceived immediate problems. True market forces ARE long term. Government manipulation outside of market forces is always a "now" fix and hope it works. That it usually doesn't is why the non-market fixes always have to be re-fixed and funded at greater levels and regulated further and further in micromanaged short term fixes.
Government fixes of that nature are always messy, full of fake rises in GDP, phony promises and compromises, a tangled web of lies and failed attempts which actually give government the illusory opportunity to present even more fixes.
So, are you saying China has gone from the traditional 5 year fixes that communism used to promise to decade fixes? Interesting how you put it--"China is working on decades long business plans." You so are stuck on the progressive ideology that it is government which must plan the commercial business of a nation.
If we remove government subsidy and selective regulations, which favor preferred companies, from corporate structure and budgets, AND remove government "welfare" for labor (pro-labor regulations by NLRB), we will be much closer to a free competitive market. That would create an interesting contest between global government subsidized business and free market U.S. business.
I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.
The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?
Quote:
The peculiar process of raising corporate costs imposed by government giving labor the power to inflict those costs, but then reimbursing corporations with corporate welfare merely creates an inflationary rise in the "economy" and a fake rise in GDP. The only winner being a more powerful and controlling government.
But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce. Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.
I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.
Quote:
Remove the cost of corruptive manipulating government middle man, let market forces determine costs and prices, and I'd put my bet on U.S. corporations beating the socks off of subsidized and controlled foreign corps.The real short-termism is constant ad hoc government intrusion into and manipulation of the market for perceived immediate problems. True market forces ARE long term. Government manipulation outside of market forces is always a "now" fix and hope it works. That it usually doesn't is why the non-market fixes always have to be re-fixed and funded at greater levels and regulated further and further in micromanaged short term fixes.
That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?
Quote:
Government fixes of that nature are always messy, full of fake rises in GDP, phony promises and compromises, a tangled web of lies and failed attempts which actually give government the illusory opportunity to present even more fixes.
I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.
Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.
Quote:
So, are you saying China has gone from the traditional 5 year fixes that communism used to promise to decade fixes? Interesting how you put it--"China is working on decades long business plans." You so are stuck on the progressive ideology that it is government which must plan the commercial business of a nation.
I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???
But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.
I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system
I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....
the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"
by God awful, I don't mean ideologically pure. By God-awful, I mean completely unelectable, like the witch that got nominated for the Senate.
I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.
The contest between free market versus government controlled market would be more than interesting.
The outcome would determine, on the one hand, whether the future of your children is a place in a static society in which most are on the distant economic bottom, and with the very few at the very wealthy top. Good luck with that.
Or, on the other hand, whether they are free to make their way to whatever level they are comfortable.
The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?
The "end game" is toward a more free U.S. market. It is to end the trajectory toward national fiscal insolvency, and to replace it with a move to solvency by an more open and competitive market.
But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce.
They usually result in rising product costs for consumers. Any temporary short term gains by the workforce are soon offset by the rising costs throughout the economy and the ensuing inflation.
Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.
A more difficult vice is maintaining uncompetitive policy in the face of competition. Such a face would lead to zero shareholder value.
I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.
Isn't GDP the value of domestic product. If the value is artificially inflated by government manipulation which creates rising costs, the monetary face value rises without a rise in production. The rise in value is simply a rise in cost.
That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?
Just go Nike--Just do it. That's how government got big and entangled itself with the corporate world, giving us the Big Government/Big Business complex. It didn't make an argument to the people. It just went about dismantling the constitutional order gaining more and more power to do what it wished. The control of the "economy" required replacing market forces with political control and the consequent transfer of individual freedom to government's freedom to do as it wishes. It was natural for a centralized government to create a more centralized "market" under the control of its regulations. It is not a new model, just a different version that is supposed to create social order and justice. We have argued over the details of why that doesn't work, why socialism or Marxism or communism don't work. At least not work in a way satisfactory to Americans. Though that view is changing. At any rate, what has happened is that instead of stability, we have constant change and a trajectory toward economic collapse. And justice is merely that which is preferred by prevailing government. And rendered for those who are in the moment preferred by government.
And it's not about the form of the argument. It's about the substance. The form of the argument can be applied to any government imposition, or removal of that imposition.
The substance of the oligarchic nexus between Big Government and Big Business which includes the ACA is not only the trajectory to economic collapse, but the loss of constitutional unalienable rights.
I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.
Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.
Don't be such a crackpot extremist. I didn't say ALL regulation. Government has its place, and constitutional regulation can be beneficial. And corruption is inherent in human nature. It applies in all forms of government or human relations. Virtue is required even in the most despotic regimes for the process to work for the benefit of all rather than only for the few.
As for stability--where in the record of Big Government/Big Business do you find stability? Government regulations are pumped out by the thousands every year. The legal environment is constantly changing. As is the social environment. Morays are changing apace. And we are heading for financial collapse.
I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???
You don't expound it. You exude it.
But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.
-spence
And if we play by their rules we become like them. Cogs in a top down all powerful government in tandem with highly centralized Big Business, rigidly heading toward economic nightmare.
like FOX, BUSH, GREEDY CORPORATIONS, TEA PARTY...etc...
The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America.
huh?...no...they're out of step with the establishment elitists and the media that dutifully supports the establishment...that makes them BAAAADD....like Ebens earlier quote indicated, if you tell a lie long enough it can become reality in the minds of many..."The Tea Party" doesn't get much good press, primarily endless, mindless bashing from folks like you, the elites and the media...it's a wonder they're still around at all
You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason. It's infatuation with contradiction and incoherence.
wow..."the Tea Party's"...assigning those individual qualities or shortcomings in blanket form to a group shows an obvious "inability to process things like facts or reason" and a strange tendency to project your own qualities on those that draw your ire .....you seem to make a living at doing exactly this Spence ....talk about the pot calling the "crack pots" black
-spence
all of these judgments coming from a guy that supported Joe Biden for President??
It's a component of it...saying Federal Spending has a big impact on GDP is misleading. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.
I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.
. 
Linear Mode
