I have no idea Heather. I wish I was as smart as some of these folks. Or, are they making ideological choices here rather than offering truly informed content? Hmmmm, let me think.Talking points? You watch way too much TV. Calling them talking points doesn't negate the fact that they are true. It just shows you don't have an intelligent counter argument. It's generally the precursor to using "you're a racist" as an attempt to win the argument.
I am always just a bit astonished at the Republicans who continue to advocate nothing at all or, the exact same policies that got us into our current situation.....Bush cut taxes....Bush rolled back government regulation of finance and the market (Clinton too) and look where we are. It really doesn't seem like a largely unregulated free market worked too well, does it? We're in the middle of an economic catastrophe because of something called a derivative that no one can explain but that made a shit-load of money for a very few people and a grossly unrealistic real estate bubble.
As for TARP, etc. I just don't know. And neither does anybody else. The real wild card is that nobody knows what would have happened if the government hadn't acted in the way they did. There are many reputable mainstream economists who believe the economy would have lapsed into a full-blown depression without the bailouts. But...that's crystal-ball gazing.
As for those who denounce Obama's competence....that's just echo-chamber talking points from Limbaugh and Hannity. It makes not one bit of difference what he does to some of these folks. It's ideology, not reality. He inherited the worst economic situation for a president since FDR. He's been in office 18 months. It's not a fixable situation in that amount of time.
We'll see. Originally Posted by timpage
- boardman
- 07-09-2010, 08:43 AM
- jceeman
- 07-09-2010, 11:02 AM
Obama and his crew are demand-siders, AKA Keynesians. They think that if the govt spends a whole lot of money that this will create jobs and "stimulate the economy." The problem, though, is that our economy is a dynamic one which, when it is in the doldrums as at present, shows a need to redeploy and re-allocate resources *away* from things like real estate that the govt was artificially pumping up. This happens not when demand just increases for everything from chewing gum to cars but when new industries are created by investment. That is why supply-side economics worked in the 1980's - tax breaks freed up funds for the creation of new industries like HDTV, cell phones, etc.
That is what we need now and spending a whole pile of money before finally figuring it out is not going to help. We need a tax holiday and an extension of the tax cuts to get us out of this slump, not extended unemployment benefits and other disincentives for work, innovation and productivity. That's probably not going to happen, though. At least not until Obama can't run again in 2016.
Not that I have anything against Obama personally. He's just wrong on the economics and calling him names doesn't make that any more true. I think Obama also sold the US a bill of goods promising a new way of doing things politically and then, once he was in, he just surrounded himself with a whole bunch of old political retreads. He even attacked Hillary during the campaign saying that she would say anything to get elected and then change nothing once she was in and then, once he, Obama gets in, he puts her on his staff!?
At least when Reagan came in he really changed things and brought along his own people who knew how and could be trusted to do things the "Reagan way."
That is what we need now and spending a whole pile of money before finally figuring it out is not going to help. We need a tax holiday and an extension of the tax cuts to get us out of this slump, not extended unemployment benefits and other disincentives for work, innovation and productivity. That's probably not going to happen, though. At least not until Obama can't run again in 2016.
Not that I have anything against Obama personally. He's just wrong on the economics and calling him names doesn't make that any more true. I think Obama also sold the US a bill of goods promising a new way of doing things politically and then, once he was in, he just surrounded himself with a whole bunch of old political retreads. He even attacked Hillary during the campaign saying that she would say anything to get elected and then change nothing once she was in and then, once he, Obama gets in, he puts her on his staff!?
At least when Reagan came in he really changed things and brought along his own people who knew how and could be trusted to do things the "Reagan way."
- Don T. Lukbak
- 07-09-2010, 12:26 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...nations-elite/
Even the egghead elite former Obamini are beginning to accept that Obama's policies are destroying the wealth creation cornucopia that was America. That's not in doubt. The only remaining question: incompetence, or intentional sabotage? Either he's nowhere near as bright as advertised or he's evil. Pick one.
Even the egghead elite former Obamini are beginning to accept that Obama's policies are destroying the wealth creation cornucopia that was America. That's not in doubt. The only remaining question: incompetence, or intentional sabotage? Either he's nowhere near as bright as advertised or he's evil. Pick one.
- boardman
- 07-09-2010, 01:40 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...nations-elite/I would like to think it's the former. However, when you look at the big picture...........
Even the egghead elite former Obamini are beginning to accept that Obama's policies are destroying the wealth creation cornucopia that was America. That's not in doubt. The only remaining question: incompetence, or intentional sabotage? Either he's nowhere near as bright as advertised or he's evil. Pick one. Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak
- lizardking
- 07-09-2010, 04:27 PM
. . . the following policies would be pursued:
1. Shut down both wars immediately. The debt explosion/cash hemorrhage directly related to these pointless - and apparently endless - fiascoes completely eclipse the "bailouts". The benefit is completely disproportionate to the cost. Approximately 50,000 folks a year die in car accidents. we've lost fewer than 4000 folks to terrorist attacks in the past ten years. If we cut the speed limit to 20mph everywhere - highways included - and required every vehicle to be equipped with a governor, those deaths would drop off to nothing. Would it be worth it? Would people tolerate the inconvenience? Hell no! It's to easy to pass along the cost of ill-advised military action to our children and grandchildren. "War is the enemy of all mankind. The thought of war blows my mind." Haven't we learned anything?
2. Impose an immediate and confiscatory tax on anything that can be reasonable construed and "outsourcing" jobs that could/would/should otherwise be performed by Americans in America, thus incentivising US companies to IMMEDIATELY move those jobs back home. Of course, particularly in the case of manufacturing jobs, this would necessitate a counter-balancing tax or duty on imported goods that compete with domestically produced goods. Such a counter-balancing penalty would be less of a concern in connections with services such a call centers and similar activities. Generally speaking, protectionism is not a good thing, but this would be a temporary emergency measure to address a (hopefully) temporary emergency.
3. Impose an immediate moratorium on lobbying, thus encouraging all elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents, rather than those of their former staffers now working as lobbyists. Those fuckers can go work in the newly-reopened call centers.
4. Pursue a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits and stringent campaign contribution limits at every level of government. A Constitutional amendment appears the only way to circumvent a Supreme Court that is quite obviously corrupt, both ethically and intellectually.
5. Cut the tax rates for all but the very wealthiest of taxpayers. Impose an estate tax of 50% of all estates valued at over $2 million.
6. Appoint Judges that will respect the Constitution, including strict adherence to the First, Second, and Seventh Amendments. The Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a trial by jury in civil cases, is worthy of particular attention. Almost all Federal "regulation" in the past 30 years provided some sort of bullshit bureaucratic oversight and administrative grievance process at the expense of a citizen's right to simply sue for redress and have his case heard by a jury. There is no place where the interests of big business and corporate America have so completely triumphed over those of the ordinary citizen. The ONLY place where a citizen stands on equal footing with a big corporation is in front of a jury of 12 ordinary citizens, and this is abhorrent to such a corporation. The jury system is far from perfect, but it is much more perfect than bureaucratic public regulation, which is impotent, inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. The jury system is, in effect, a system of private regulation. It is also costly and inefficient to a degree, but the burdens of those costs and inefficiencies are borne by the parties to a particular dispute, not taxpayers. The intellectual dishonesty of "big business" Republicans is revealed in their attitudes about juries vs. bureaucrats. Although the jury system quite obviously involves "less government", those hypocrites much prefer bureaucratic regulation, which equates to "more government" but, for them LESS ACCOUNTABILITY.
7. Legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay marriage . . . and any activity that doesn't directly impact anyone other that the person participating in that activity. Here, again, the hypocrisy of the right is revealed. Do you want less government, or do you want to pay to police my private life? Additionally, dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.
8. No more bailouts! Let the market do its thing and damn the consequences. The size of the banking industry is dictated by deposits and credit demand. If one bank fails, others will step in to pick up the market share (and former employees) of the weak and essentially worthless institution. If there is any future bailout, it should be implemented from the bottom up. For example, in remedying the mortgage crisis, we bailed out the folks at the top and cast adrift those at the bottom. If it was going to do anything at all, the government should have forced negotiation of mortgage balances and terms and subsidized the homeowners payment of reduced amounts. The banks would have been paid back a significant part of what they were owed, homeowners would have kept their homes, and real estate markets around the country would have taken less of a hit from depressed prices resulting from excessive foreclosures.
9. Implement real financial reform that recognizes the inherent lack of real value in purely financial activities such as CDOs and similar derivative transactions. the fundamental problem has been that the credit markets allow the originators of debt to separate themselves entirely from the repayment risk. Many on the right - especially those cock-sucking teabaggers - criticize poor folks for buying houses and other things that they realistically could not afford. This is a flawed analysis. One must understand that an entire industry arose with no purpose other than the creation of debt. Mortgage companies, credit card operations, and auto acceptance companies came to exist only for the purpose of generating paper debt and the selling/securitizing it AND RETAINING NO INTEREST IN IT. These loan originators had no incentive to properly underwrite this paper . . . in fact, they had every incentive NOT to properly underwrite it. This is a very complex issue that merits a separate discussion.
10. Many of the problems addressed by the issues raised in the immediately preceding point would be addressed if the individuals negatively impacted thereby had a right to sue, but they typically do not (at least not effectively). An effective remedy, for example, would allow the shareholders in the banks brought down (or to the brink of collapse) to sue derivatively for a "clawback" of bonuses and compensation paid to those structuring these ridiculously bad deals. Further to this thought, the law should require bankers' compensation to be earned or vested over a period of time sufficient to allow some measurement of the "success" of the transactions geneating the fees that form the basis for such compensation. If, for example, the lehman Bros. and Goldman Sachs bankers were paid bonuses based on the last five years' performance rather that the last year's performance, they wouldn't have made out like bandits. Alternatively, if they were required to pay back compensation (either directly or forcibly through shareholder derivative actions), there would be a bit more fairness and balance . . . and the cost of cleaning up the mess would not fall solely on taxpayers!
I had high hopes for Obama, but I was foolish. He's probably the second worst president in history, right behind George W. But get used to it. Our system has deteriorated so much in the past ten years that it is calculated to produce this sort of worthless, impotent leader. The moneyed interest in this country are continuing to grow richer by the minute. Polarization of wealth continues at an alarming pace,. There is no longer any middle class, and the gap between rich and poor is astonishingly wide. The powers that be in this country do not want change, and they control both parties.
SO . . . who's voting for me?
1. Shut down both wars immediately. The debt explosion/cash hemorrhage directly related to these pointless - and apparently endless - fiascoes completely eclipse the "bailouts". The benefit is completely disproportionate to the cost. Approximately 50,000 folks a year die in car accidents. we've lost fewer than 4000 folks to terrorist attacks in the past ten years. If we cut the speed limit to 20mph everywhere - highways included - and required every vehicle to be equipped with a governor, those deaths would drop off to nothing. Would it be worth it? Would people tolerate the inconvenience? Hell no! It's to easy to pass along the cost of ill-advised military action to our children and grandchildren. "War is the enemy of all mankind. The thought of war blows my mind." Haven't we learned anything?
2. Impose an immediate and confiscatory tax on anything that can be reasonable construed and "outsourcing" jobs that could/would/should otherwise be performed by Americans in America, thus incentivising US companies to IMMEDIATELY move those jobs back home. Of course, particularly in the case of manufacturing jobs, this would necessitate a counter-balancing tax or duty on imported goods that compete with domestically produced goods. Such a counter-balancing penalty would be less of a concern in connections with services such a call centers and similar activities. Generally speaking, protectionism is not a good thing, but this would be a temporary emergency measure to address a (hopefully) temporary emergency.
3. Impose an immediate moratorium on lobbying, thus encouraging all elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents, rather than those of their former staffers now working as lobbyists. Those fuckers can go work in the newly-reopened call centers.
4. Pursue a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits and stringent campaign contribution limits at every level of government. A Constitutional amendment appears the only way to circumvent a Supreme Court that is quite obviously corrupt, both ethically and intellectually.
5. Cut the tax rates for all but the very wealthiest of taxpayers. Impose an estate tax of 50% of all estates valued at over $2 million.
6. Appoint Judges that will respect the Constitution, including strict adherence to the First, Second, and Seventh Amendments. The Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a trial by jury in civil cases, is worthy of particular attention. Almost all Federal "regulation" in the past 30 years provided some sort of bullshit bureaucratic oversight and administrative grievance process at the expense of a citizen's right to simply sue for redress and have his case heard by a jury. There is no place where the interests of big business and corporate America have so completely triumphed over those of the ordinary citizen. The ONLY place where a citizen stands on equal footing with a big corporation is in front of a jury of 12 ordinary citizens, and this is abhorrent to such a corporation. The jury system is far from perfect, but it is much more perfect than bureaucratic public regulation, which is impotent, inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. The jury system is, in effect, a system of private regulation. It is also costly and inefficient to a degree, but the burdens of those costs and inefficiencies are borne by the parties to a particular dispute, not taxpayers. The intellectual dishonesty of "big business" Republicans is revealed in their attitudes about juries vs. bureaucrats. Although the jury system quite obviously involves "less government", those hypocrites much prefer bureaucratic regulation, which equates to "more government" but, for them LESS ACCOUNTABILITY.
7. Legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay marriage . . . and any activity that doesn't directly impact anyone other that the person participating in that activity. Here, again, the hypocrisy of the right is revealed. Do you want less government, or do you want to pay to police my private life? Additionally, dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.
8. No more bailouts! Let the market do its thing and damn the consequences. The size of the banking industry is dictated by deposits and credit demand. If one bank fails, others will step in to pick up the market share (and former employees) of the weak and essentially worthless institution. If there is any future bailout, it should be implemented from the bottom up. For example, in remedying the mortgage crisis, we bailed out the folks at the top and cast adrift those at the bottom. If it was going to do anything at all, the government should have forced negotiation of mortgage balances and terms and subsidized the homeowners payment of reduced amounts. The banks would have been paid back a significant part of what they were owed, homeowners would have kept their homes, and real estate markets around the country would have taken less of a hit from depressed prices resulting from excessive foreclosures.
9. Implement real financial reform that recognizes the inherent lack of real value in purely financial activities such as CDOs and similar derivative transactions. the fundamental problem has been that the credit markets allow the originators of debt to separate themselves entirely from the repayment risk. Many on the right - especially those cock-sucking teabaggers - criticize poor folks for buying houses and other things that they realistically could not afford. This is a flawed analysis. One must understand that an entire industry arose with no purpose other than the creation of debt. Mortgage companies, credit card operations, and auto acceptance companies came to exist only for the purpose of generating paper debt and the selling/securitizing it AND RETAINING NO INTEREST IN IT. These loan originators had no incentive to properly underwrite this paper . . . in fact, they had every incentive NOT to properly underwrite it. This is a very complex issue that merits a separate discussion.
10. Many of the problems addressed by the issues raised in the immediately preceding point would be addressed if the individuals negatively impacted thereby had a right to sue, but they typically do not (at least not effectively). An effective remedy, for example, would allow the shareholders in the banks brought down (or to the brink of collapse) to sue derivatively for a "clawback" of bonuses and compensation paid to those structuring these ridiculously bad deals. Further to this thought, the law should require bankers' compensation to be earned or vested over a period of time sufficient to allow some measurement of the "success" of the transactions geneating the fees that form the basis for such compensation. If, for example, the lehman Bros. and Goldman Sachs bankers were paid bonuses based on the last five years' performance rather that the last year's performance, they wouldn't have made out like bandits. Alternatively, if they were required to pay back compensation (either directly or forcibly through shareholder derivative actions), there would be a bit more fairness and balance . . . and the cost of cleaning up the mess would not fall solely on taxpayers!
I had high hopes for Obama, but I was foolish. He's probably the second worst president in history, right behind George W. But get used to it. Our system has deteriorated so much in the past ten years that it is calculated to produce this sort of worthless, impotent leader. The moneyed interest in this country are continuing to grow richer by the minute. Polarization of wealth continues at an alarming pace,. There is no longer any middle class, and the gap between rich and poor is astonishingly wide. The powers that be in this country do not want change, and they control both parties.
SO . . . who's voting for me?
- Don T. Lukbak
- 07-09-2010, 05:15 PM
That would depend on what alternative candidate is available. If the only choices were Mr. Lizard King vs Mr. Barkie Obama I would cast my vote for Mr. King. Here's why: it's hard to imagine any ECCIE mutt would intentionally destroy America.
- JohnnyFarangly
- 07-09-2010, 06:18 PM
. . . the following policies would be pursued:Several of your ideas may violate the Constitution. but you want to, "Appoint Judges that will respect the Constitution, " ?
1. Shut down both wars immediately.
2. Impose an immediate and confiscatory tax on anything that can be reasonable construed and "outsourcing" jobs that could/would/should otherwise be performed by Americans in America, thus incentivising US companies to IMMEDIATELY move those jobs back home.
3. Impose an immediate moratorium on lobbying,
4. Pursue a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits and stringent campaign contribution limits at every level of government.
5. Cut the tax rates for all but the very wealthiest of taxpayers. Impose an estate tax of 50% of all estates valued at over $2 million.
6. Appoint Judges that will respect the Constitution,
7. Legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay marriage . .
8. No more bailouts!
9. Implement real financial reform that recognizes the inherent lack of real value in purely financial activities such as CDOs and similar derivative transactions.
10. Many of the problems addressed by the issues raised in the immediately preceding point would be addressed if the individuals negatively impacted thereby had a right to sue,
SO . . . who's voting for me? Originally Posted by lizardking
I could certainly support: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, & 9.
5. Our net tax rates are about right. (Full Disclosure - I am in the highest bracket)
8. You really, really dont want to know where we would be today without the bailout. It is easy to hate on it and a great red herring for the wingnuts, but if there had been no bailout life really would have gone to hell.
I am willing to form an exploratory committee for your candidacy.
- JoeDelt
- 07-09-2010, 11:50 PM
I think the question is the problem.
Mass media control by [do your research] frames your choices to two parties.
They suppress other options.
Both parties supports the same agenda. One World Government.
Both support ongoing wars, bigger government, deficit spending and most important, not questioning the Private entity called the Federal Reserve.
I would research, read up on the Federal Reserve and ask why does the government have to borrow money from the Federal Reserve?
And if all money is created from the Federal Reserve and borrowed with the interest, where does the interest come from?
Ex: Federal Reserve creates $100 (add any amount of zeros here) to the money supply at 8% interest, where does the 8% come from when only the federal reserve creates the money? And they only created $100 (add same number of zeros here.)?
If you can answer that, let me know.
Thanks.
Mass media control by [do your research] frames your choices to two parties.
They suppress other options.
Both parties supports the same agenda. One World Government.
Both support ongoing wars, bigger government, deficit spending and most important, not questioning the Private entity called the Federal Reserve.
I would research, read up on the Federal Reserve and ask why does the government have to borrow money from the Federal Reserve?
And if all money is created from the Federal Reserve and borrowed with the interest, where does the interest come from?
Ex: Federal Reserve creates $100 (add any amount of zeros here) to the money supply at 8% interest, where does the 8% come from when only the federal reserve creates the money? And they only created $100 (add same number of zeros here.)?
If you can answer that, let me know.
Thanks.
- Guest021824
- 07-10-2010, 12:33 AM
Religion and Politics........two subjects you will never get a group of people to agree on, unless they are spliting the collection plate or getting a payoff under the table. There are some good arguments here.
but the point everyone is forgetting we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a republic.
Democracy is a form of Government where officials are elected and allowed to make decisions with out any safeguards.
A Republic is a country that elects Representatives to run the Government. There will be a constitution and a bill of rights that will protect rights even if they are unpopular at the time.
Australia is a democracy......They sensor free speech, they don't have a bill of rights and it is basically legal mob rule. In a Democracy the government has complete control it is almost like a dictatorship.
Restoring the republic means a return to Constitutional Law.......If we abide by the constitution as it is written many of the problems we have today would not exist. But, politicians know the masses don't know a damn thing about such things and continue to believe we live in a democratic society , when nothing could be further from the truth.
I will just leave it there for the time being
but the point everyone is forgetting we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a republic.
Democracy is a form of Government where officials are elected and allowed to make decisions with out any safeguards.
A Republic is a country that elects Representatives to run the Government. There will be a constitution and a bill of rights that will protect rights even if they are unpopular at the time.
Australia is a democracy......They sensor free speech, they don't have a bill of rights and it is basically legal mob rule. In a Democracy the government has complete control it is almost like a dictatorship.
Restoring the republic means a return to Constitutional Law.......If we abide by the constitution as it is written many of the problems we have today would not exist. But, politicians know the masses don't know a damn thing about such things and continue to believe we live in a democratic society , when nothing could be further from the truth.
I will just leave it there for the time being
- txscubaman
- 07-10-2010, 07:38 AM
Afghanistan was a war worth fighting and winning-- Iraq was an unnecessary and hugely costly sideshow. Unfortunately Iraq got most of the attention, troops, and money. Originally Posted by Cousin Dupree
Yo, cuz.... ever hear of Salman Pak? That's just one of the reasons Iraq was necessary. Salman Pak was where most of the 9/11 terrorist trained on how to take over a plane (not how to fly a plane, just take over). Secondly, Iraq has been a destabilizing force in the middle east for years, and needed to be put down. Too bad Iran has taken their place... But BO has no stomach for dealing with Iran.
- txscubaman
- 07-10-2010, 07:52 AM
Lizard King, you really need to be using Lukbak's avatar, cause you really are a narcissist and marxist. If you really believe that BO is the second worst president behind W, then you obviously weren't (a) around, (b) alert, or (C) coherent when we had dumbasses like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. I don't know about you, but I remember BO saying with the bailout we wouldn't have unemployment above 8%. So what did we get for all that money? 12 Trillion in debt (principle plus interest) and 10.1% unemployment. I hate BO for both... I lost my job (after 26 1/2 years), and saw my taxes go up (by letting the Bush tax cuts expire). So just what I need - unemployment and more government interference in my life!
- Cousin Dupree
- 07-10-2010, 03:31 PM
Yo, cuz.... ever hear of Salman Pak? That's just one of the reasons Iraq was necessary. Salman Pak was where most of the 9/11 terrorist trained on how to take over a plane (not how to fly a plane, just take over). Secondly, Iraq has been a destabilizing force in the middle east for years, and needed to be put down. Too bad Iran has taken their place... But BO has no stomach for dealing with Iran. Originally Posted by txscubaman
That would be news to the 9/11 Commission, which found no credible evidence linking Iraq to either Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. And it's not like they didn't try to make that connection. The evidence just wasn't there. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was deeply involved with Al Qaeda, which is why that war was necessary.
- downwardpull
- 07-11-2010, 03:26 AM
these are just generalizations....
Republicans get us into wars we can't afford that don't really seem to help anything but giant corporations and supposedly those we "liberate"...
Democrats spend money on programs at home (that pisses off people that pay taxes <ie redistrubuting their wealth and making government bigger>> that are supposed to help with social issues.. but who knows.. some of them might work.. some of them might enable laziness..
they are all politicians.. the party system is bullshit... it's all corrupted by money...
Republicans get us into wars we can't afford that don't really seem to help anything but giant corporations and supposedly those we "liberate"...
Democrats spend money on programs at home (that pisses off people that pay taxes <ie redistrubuting their wealth and making government bigger>> that are supposed to help with social issues.. but who knows.. some of them might work.. some of them might enable laziness..
they are all politicians.. the party system is bullshit... it's all corrupted by money...
- Don T. Lukbak
- 07-11-2010, 08:36 AM
these are just generalizations....El wrongo; brief summary of America's 20th Century Wars:
Republicans get us into wars we can't afford that don't really seem to help anything but giant corporations and supposedly those we "liberate"... Originally Posted by downwardpull
World War I, aka, the War to End all Wars: Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson over-reacted to the Zimmerman Telegram and unnecessarily committed American forces to the European meatgrinder. If there was ever an unnecessary war, this one was it...basically a personal squabble among shitbags who ruled Europe, writ large. Of course WWI had its postive contributions, such as Boche soldiers retreating from our Marine contingent, defeated and sniveling that the Teufelhunde got 'em by the necks and would not let go, and Dan Daly would not have led his Marines into Belleau Wood hollering "Come on you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?" Loss of life aside, the major negative consequence of WWI was the worthless fucking League of Nations, which essentially assured WWII by imposing crippling reparations on post-war Germany via the Treaty of Versailles.
World War II, essentially a continuation of wrongly concluded WWI...Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt set the stage (rightly so) for our entry during the third year of the war by achieving passage of conscription legislation, which passed by one vote. Conscription legislation, as well as entry into the war, was strongly (and wrongly) opposed by the Republicans.
Korean War...Democrat Harry Truman, without Congressional approval, committed American troops billeted in occupied Japan after North Korean Arclight invasion 24 June 1950. The ROK were completely unprepared. If you wonder whether or not this was a righteous war, just take a look at night satellite photos of Chosun peninsula today. Then you won't wonder whether or not it was a necessary war, unless you're nuts.
Vietnam War: Republican President Dwight Eisenhower refused to become entangled in Asian land wars, told the Frogs to pound sand when they asked for help in retaining their colony in Indo-China. Enter Camelot: Democrat President Saint John F. Kennedy committed American forces to Vietnam in incrementally larger batches (piecemeal deployment in warfare is always a bad idea), sanctioned the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem, and assured our ultimate defeat by committing to treaty obligations to respect the Laotian and Cambodian borders (just look at a map to see how stupid that was), which Uncle Ho Chi Minh exploited for safe haven and logistics. If Kennedy didn't fuck things up enough, Lyndon Johnson followed up with a staged pretext (Tonkin Gulf incident) to full scale commitment of American troops, then requiring them to fight while hog-tied. Republican Richard Nixon brought an end to our commitment of ground troops, leaving the ARVN in good stead...and they were maintaining a generally peaceful and secure South Vietnam, with GDP growing a lot year by year, until the post-Watergate Democrat dominated Congress, in a fit of pique and posturing, abruptly cut off all logistic and air support to the ARVN, thus assuring the helter-skelter fall of Saigon to NVA main force armor and the deaths of millions of Vietnamese as well as Cambodians by Pol Pot and Laotians. The Democrat Congress of 1974 essentially committed mass murder. On the positive side the "boat people" who hauled ass to America in order to save their lives are among our best Americans today. It's safe to say Vietnam was a total Democrat fuck-up.
Gulf War I...Republican G.H.W. Bush, with Congressional and multi-national international approval, removed Iraqi military from Kuwait. My personal opinion is Saddam invaded Kuwait because President Bush fucked up and sent a friggin' woman ambassador, April Glaspie, to Iraq...you know, affirmative action bullshit...and sweet little April shit a brick when Saddam hotboxed her pre-invasion to the extent that he thought she had acquiesced to his signaled intent to invade. I believe if we had a stud like John Bolton in Baghdad he would have shut Saddam Hussein's colonial ambitions down RIGHT THERE. But I'm just a schmoo with no insider knowledge so my opinion could be fucked. So...we sent a shitload of troops to Saudi Arabia and bombed the fuck out of Iraq, and ran the Iraqi's out of Kuwait...but we failed to destroy the Republican Guard when we had the chance because the "highway of death" was shown on TV and the public clamored for us to stop being mean. Big opportunity lost. The good news is our military performed superbly, and there was always a little doubt after Vietnam. The bad news is our military performed superbly, and we got beguiled by precision bombs ... the qualifer is it performed superbly in Generation 3 Warfighting, with even some G2W mixed in .... causing us to forget we had never yet defeated a G4W enemy. Only an adversary that was nuts would have opposed us in 2003 with straight-up G3W...officials (Rumsfeld) and commanders who excelled in G3W couldn't manage to reconceptualize, and Bush 43 was too stubbornly loyal to Rumsfeld because he IS a good man and WAS extremely effective before....
.....and then,
.....and then....,
....along comes Obama, and what does this asshat do? He sacked the general who was very possibly the best G4W commander in American history; he sacked that proven COIN general because his (Obama's) sorry hide was too thin to take a itty bitty barracks humor...and then the turd has the chutzpah to compare sacking McChrystal because his subordinates were cracking jokes about him to Truman's sacking of MacArthur, because MacArthur would have made his own foreign policy and attacked Red China across the Yalu River if Truman had not stopped him. So Obama compares cracking jokes at his expense with starting the next world war. Figures!
I have no idea how anyone could serve under Obama and maintain his sanity without cracking a few jokes, at a minimum.
OK, brief reprise: 20th century American wars: started by Democrats - 4 (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam); started by Republicans - 1 (Gulf War I).
- Don T. Lukbak
- 07-11-2010, 08:53 AM
Democrats spend money on programs at home (that pisses off people that pay taxes <ie redistrubuting their wealth and making government bigger>> that are supposed to help with social issues.. but who knows.. some of them might work.. some of them might enable laziness..Democrats spend money on programs at home to buy votes.
they are all politicians.. the party system is bullshit... it's all corrupted by money... Originally Posted by downwardpull
Taking money from taxpayers and giving it to parasites is legal theft, plunder. Robbing banks is also redistributive.
Taking money from people who work hard and giving it to people who don't work (as hard) punishes hard work and rewards worthlessness.
Any commodity that is subsidized will be over-produced: subsidize worthlessness, and you will get more worthlessness.
Taxing any commodity will result in less of it: taxing productivity results in less productivity.
The million-word IRS code exists for one purpose, and that purpose is NOT to raise revenue. The sole purpose of the tax code is to enable Congress to reward its friends and punish its enemies.