Hello:

I got a feeling. That's all it is... But, there's evidence too. You'll dispute it. You always do.. But, our great experiment with liberalism is over.. Hell, even the WORD is demonized these days.

Our attempt to desegregate our schools has failed. There isn't any effort afoot to restart it.. Republicans say, "Racism??? What racism??" But, it's there, and it's WORSE today.

I could go on, and as the thread develops, I hope to... It's NOT just about race. It's about money.. It's about power. I wonder if anybody else has this feeling?

excon

And with money and power comes entitlement. And with entitlement comes "I'm better than you are. You are the dirt under my shoes."

"I'm better than you are. You are the dirt under my shoes."Hi Carol:

"You are the 47% who pay NO taxes. You are a teacher. The economy is YOUR fault. You need food stamps to feed your family. You're a leech."

excon

Hi Carol:

"You are the 47% who pay NO taxes. You are a teacher. The economy is YOUR fault. You need food stamps to feed your family. You're a leech."

excon
Teachers pay taxes. Laid-off-teachers-out-of-work don't. And putting 50 students in one room with one teacher will lay off all those extra teachers who are draining the education coffers.

Hi again, Carol:

Ok, so if I'm NOT dreaming, what are we going to do about it?

excon

I'm telling all the telemarketers and anyone else who calls my house to vote Democrat in November. I'll be tele-campaigning this fall. I do resumes and job hunting help for free (the jobs ARE out there). I write letters or make calls when needed. I spend money to keep the economy going. Hmmm, I must be doing other stuff too.

Hello again, Carol:

I know all that stuff... That's what we're all going to do.

What I want to know is what happens if Obama loses and the right wing takes over the Senate. They'll have their way with us, THAT'S what will happen. On another thread, I tried to sound the alarm... But, they poo pooed it. They said, what are you talking about? Nobody is going to DO that stuff... But, as soon as they had a few states under their belt, they did exactly that. It's CLEAR what their intention is, and it AIN'T liberal.

excon

More alarmist politics Ex the big green goblin is going to eat you, but the way I see it Ex you are screwed either way

Hello again, Carol:

I know all that stuff... That's what we're all going to do.

What I wanna know is what happens if Obama loses and the right wing takes over the Senate. They'll have their way with us, THAT'S what will happen. On another thread, I tried to sound the alarm... But, they poo pooed it. They said, what are you talking about? Nobody is gonna DO that stuff... But, as soon as they had a few states under their belt, they did exactly that. It's CLEAR what their intention is, and it AIN'T liberal.

excon

You never know maybe things will actually get better again and heal some of the wounds created over the past few years. Obama is horrible as president and the only one truly happy about it is Carter.

You never know maybe things will actually get better again and heal some of the wounds created over the past few years. Obama is horrible as president and the only one truely happy about it is Carter.

Carter, let's not do a retrospective here Obama is a populist, he thought healthcare reform was popular, he thinks bringing the troops home is popular, he thinks taxing the rich is popular, it is a great shame the most popular idea is regime change

Ex ,it is your side that bastardized the word by replacing liberalism with radical progressive socialism. If liberalism had remained the philosophy that the founders recognized ,and was until the age of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson then I would be a liberal .

If your great experiment with progressive socialism is over then good riddance. It's failures are on display all over the world.

Nice big words but that you try to pin on us and make them bad things but if equality, and freedom are what you mean then I can live with the name calling. What the world is seeing is that conservatives love a dictatorship run by rich guys who can make laws to take our money to add to there's and tell us there ain't no money for your school, or roads.

Then they convince themselves that corporations are people too, with more rights than real people. Then you try and tell us that the church has more rights than us real people do. As long as its YOUR church. Then you tell us that we are lazy bums who should was dishes because there are no jobs. Then you holler about the job creators who are NOT creating jobs are to broke, and need MORE money.

Then you say the president is a dictator, socialist, and throw rocks at him and blame him for everything under the sun. Especially the stuff you righties break, and the messes you make.

What should we do about it? When you guys throw rocks, throw them back, and vote against the rock throwers. Why should we be dragged back to slavery? You want to be a slave, be my guest. I just ain't going with you righies.

Do you really think people will forget the wars, recessions and the hardships you have brought about? I don't think so, but you see that chance of taking over the world, with the house, senate, and oval office, wall street, the banks and the church in your greedy little hands, and you relentlessly pursue ALL the power and riches of the world. That's what the world sees. That's what I see too.

Bet your favorite show is "Pinky, and the Brain"! The show ends the same way no matter what scheme the brain hatches. Abject failure. That never stops him from trying though.

Why should we be dragged back to slavery? You want to be a slave, be my guest. I just ain't going with you righies.

Your nanny state goals are nothing short of serfdom to the state.

Why should we be dragged back to slavery? You want to be a slave, be my guest. I just ain't going with you righies.

He's right, the free market represents slavery and you are already slaves, wage slaves, liberalism represents fairness not the domination of the 1%

Your nanny state goals are nothing short of serfdom to the state.

What you call the nanny state is what I call protection from conservative discrimination and bad uncaring behavior, whether INTENTIONAL, or not.

Best example, we would still have brutal cruel slavery had the south won the civil war. But make no mistake that the business model, and conservative attitudes and practices have made the tenants of slavery more nuanced and humane(?), but no less cruel and inhumane.

What you though taking the word slavery and call it capitalism would change the dynamics of master and slave?? The only difference is capitalism leaves no physical marks like whips and chains did. It gives you the power to tell the slaves do more work for less rewards, services, or benefits while you maximize the bottom line for a few greedy b@stards who put profit over/and at the expense of people.

That why anything that benefits the many is bad, and everything that benefits the few is a great idea.Thats why you righties call a nanny state a lousy idea, because it protects the many against the few. That's why you want it cut so bad, because its your thinking that crumbs is just to good for the slave class. Of which many of you righties are members of.

Righties love slavery, and are proud of being a slave, and will never understand why the rest of us think you are just plain... misguided.


he's right, the free market represents slavery and you are already slaves, wage slaves, liberalism represents fairness not the domination of the 1%

BINGO!!

What you call the nanny state is what I call protection from conservative discrimination and bad uncaring behavior, whether INTENTIONAL, or not.

Best example, we would still have brutal cruel slavery had the south won the civil war. But make no mistake that the business model, and conservative attitudes and practices have made the tenants of slavery more nuanced and humane(?), but no less cruel and inhumane.

What you though taking the word slavery and call it capitalism would change the dynamics of master and slave??? The only difference is capitalism leaves no physical marks like whips and chains did. It gives you the power to tell the slaves do more work for less rewards, services, or benefits while you maximize the bottom line for a few greedy b@stards who put profit over/and at the expense of people.

That why anything that benefits the many is bad, and everything that benefits the few is a great idea.Thats why you righties call a nanny state a lousy idea, because it protects the many against the few. Thats why you want it cut so bad, because its your thinking that crumbs is just to good for the slave class. Of which many of you righties are members of.

Righties love slavery, and are proud of being a slave, and will never understand why the rest of us think you are just plain.......................misguided.





Well said and absolutely true. Thanks and keep telling it like it is.

I really can't help you guys if you don't know the difference between freely working for an employer ,and human bondage. You are right that whip marks is but one of the distinctions.

You would rather the masses as you call them beholden to the nanny state. Yeah I guess there are no whip marks in that arrangement either . But whereas I can chose my employer ,and negotiate other terms of my employment ;those beholden to the nanny state are not given that option. And you guys are perfectly happy with that arrangement . How many times have Iread on these boards that if the church takes tax breaks ,that they should just learn to love the unconstitutional terms the state applies to it.

If you think that capitalism is slavery ,then why would it matter to you which side won the Civil War ? The cynical view (which you seem to support) is that the North fought the war because the capitalists in the North thought there was an unfair trade practice in the South using slaves .

It is your side that through it's misguided policies has let the economy sink to what is now called the new normal of a permanent 8%+ unemployment rate ;and rapid acceleration towards a complete fiscal collapse with endless reckless spending .

So spare me the rhetoric that pits the worker against the employer . It is your side that prevents workers from having the choice of jobs .You would be thrilled if everyone was employed by the Leviatian or a permanent ward of the Leviathan.

And Clete ,your country is nothing more today than a colony of China. How is your nation going to survive when you can't sell your minerals to the Chinese who are now operating at zero growth or below ? You have your own masters it appears to me .

Tom go tell it to the Chinese or the Indians in their sweat shops all that has happened is you have exported your slavery because some of your local slaves have worken up to you.

Tom you think Australia is a colony of China, why then do the Chinese object to our investment policies? We survived very well when we didn't sell minerals to the Chinese. You know little about Australia Tom and you just displayed your ignorance. Minimg is 5% of the Australian economy. We will even survive our FTA with the US which has done nothing for us. What riles you Tom is we are our own masters. We have developed a fairer approach than yours and shown that it works. We give the lie to all your rhetoric. We do have affordable health care, we do have public transport and public utilities, we do have low unemployment, we do have fair wages and it all operates within a capitalist system where exploitation isn't allowed. Ask Yourself, If our system is so wrong how come we have grown to be the thirteenth largest economy in the world? It isn't by digging holes in the ground.

Now Tom I think this is a marvellous insight

The North fought the war because the capitalists in the North thought there was an unfair trade practice in the South using slaves .

Freeing the slaves was an afterthought Tom a political manouvre. The North thought that by doing it there would be a slave revolt but it didn't happen

The North fought the war because they were challenged, some people said if that's your attitude we don't want to know you.

What you call the nanny state is what I call protection from conservative discrimination and bad uncaring behavior, whether INTENTIONAL, or not.


This is scary. It smacks the face of freedom. Do you actually want to live in a world where everything is outlawed unless it meets government approval?

We had a nanny state come to power before and when it reared its ugly head it was cut off. Do we really need that again? Obama has done more to attempt to shred the constitution then any other in history. In the name of protectionist nanny state. Do you really think the Washington elites know what's best for you or would you rather decide for yourself? If over population is the banner of the day do you really support the sterilization of millions of child bearing women? After all they do know better then you don't they?

Just how do you expect to pay for all the fairness you want to institute into law? Oh yeah that's right someone has to earn it by working for it. What a concept. The cradle to grave mentality has reached the end of the road and now stands on the edge looking over into the obis. Somehow someway we all need to start thinking again rather then just moving forward and calling names along the way then acting like nothing is wrong.

You might want to read up a bit on your utopian nanny state before you actually put it into place.

http://westerncivilizationandculture.blogspot.com/2009/05/hitler-myth-socialists-and-social.html

This is scary. It smacks the face of freedom. Do you actually want to live in a world where everything is outlawed unless it meets govenment approval?

We had a nanny state come to power before and when it reared its ugly head it was cut off. Do we really need that again? Obama has done more to attempt to shred the constitution then any other in history. In the name of protectionist nanny state. Do you really think the Washington elites know whats best for you or would you rather decide for yourself? If over population is the banner of the day do you really support the sterilization of millions of child bearing women? After all they do know better then you dont they?

Just how do you expect to pay for all the fairness you want to institute into law? Oh yeah thats right someone has to earn it by working for it. What a concept. The cradle to grave mentality has reached the end of the road and now stands on the edge looking over into the obis. Somehow someway we all need to start thinking again rather then just moving forward and calling names along the way then acting like nothing is wrong.

You might want to read up a bit on your utopian nanny state before you actually put it into place.

Western Civilization and Culture: The Hitler Myth, Socialists And Social Democrats (http://westerncivilizationandculture.blogspot.com/2009/05/hitler-myth-socialists-and-social.html)

Dad there are nanny states and there are controlled economies, what you are talking about is a controlled economy. Nanny state usually refers to a society that provides benefits to its citizens usually in exchange for higher levels of taxation. Sometimes this gets out of control as it has in Greece. The Universal Provider Syndrome is alive in many places and you can blame politicians for fastering it. Control is in the hands of the citizens they have the ability to change things

Dad there are nanny states and there are controlled economies, what you are talking about is a controlled economy. Nanny state usually refers to a society that provides benefits to its citizens usually in exchange for higher levels of taxation. Sometimes this gets out of control as it has in Greece. The Universal Provider Syndrome is alive in many places and you can blame politicians for fastering it. control is in the hands of the citizens they have the ability to change things

This economy is being controlled by this government. What do you think the bailouts were part of? Look at how they threw out property rights laws and laws governing rights to security when they took over for GM and gave things directly to their voter base the unions.

It's the left that throws out destructive words and runs from the truth. When you speak the truth then they are in denial. They want to burden the economy with trillions more of debt to satisfy their want of more and more power. The truth keeps biting them in the butt.

This economy is being controlled by this government.
I've gotten the impression the economy is being controlled by the wealthy. The banks were given money to help people with their mortgages, but the banks just hung on to that money and didn't help anyone--and got wealthier in the process. The wealthy want more money so they can finally "create jobs." The wealthy are encouraging the Republicans in Congress to stand fast and prevent the President from having any success and thus discourage the voters, so they can get their own wealthy man into office.

I've gotten the impression the economy is being controlled by the wealthy. The banks were given money to help people with their mortgages, but the banks just hung on to that money and didn't help anyone--and got wealthier in the process. The wealthy want more money so they can finally "create jobs." The wealthy are encouraging the Republicans in Congress to stand fast and prevent the President from having any success and thus discourage the voters, so they can get their own wealthy man into office.

If that's what you think actually happened in the banking system then your misinformed. The banks were given money in a form of a bailout. But restrictions by the government prevented the banks from releasing the money. The only one being helped are those within the government fanny mae and freddie mac. FHA has also been affected but not until recently and its going back to things as usual (signature loans that don't require a appraisal) and there are higher fees associated with that causing a nearly zero net gain. How did that help?

It only helped a select few and not the ones that were truly in trouble and it allowed the ones in trouble to continue doing so.

Don't blame the banks for doing what the government is telling them to do.

This economy is being controlled by this government. What do you think the bailouts were part of? Look at how they threw out property rights laws and laws governing rights to security when they took over for GM and gave things directly to their voter base the unions.

Its the left that throws out destructive words and runs from the truth. When you speak the truth then they are in denial. They want to burden the economy with trillions more of debt to satisfy their want of more and more power. The truth keeps biting them in the butt.

Wonderful control, it took a long time to show any effect. Control implies you can actually influence events. How can you say a government is in control when it can't even approve its own budgets?

QUOTE by califdadof3,
This is scary. It smacks the face of freedom. Do you actually want to live in a world where everything is outlawed unless it meets government approval?
I made no mention of outlawing anything, so please explain where what I wrote has anything to do with outlawing anything.


We had a nanny state come to power before and when it reared its ugly head it was cut off. Do we really need that again?
If you mean Hitler, and Germany, then you don't mean nanny state but one fool who was a successful in having powerful people around him to prop him, and his ideas up. His form of extractionian was aimed at domination, and control, and came from desperation and poverty.


Obama has done more to attempt to shred the constitution then any other in history. In the name of protectionist nanny state.
You will have to prove that with facts, because all I see are expanding services and benefits to ones that are deemed 2nd class citizens, and improving technology to make things work more efficiency.


Do you really think the Washington elites know what's best for you or would you rather decide for yourself?
Stop thinking they are elites, and see them as servant of the people and make them work for us, and not the highest bidder. OMG, think of the jobs if they made corporations actually invest in jobs and not senators! I mean who gave them the title of job creators when actually they have moved millions of jobs to other countries to exploit cheap labor and lax laws.


Just how do you expect to pay for all the fairness you want to institute into law? Oh yeah that's right someone has to earn it by working for it. What a concept.
Now we get to the right wing theory that it ain't no money for FAIRNESS?! Well there seems to be enough loot around for UN fairness! Let take that and spend it better. Lets see, schools and roads, and less prisons. Do the math. I say there is plenty of cash


The cradle to grave mentality has reached the end of the road and now stands on the edge looking over into the obis. Somehow someway we all need to start thinking again rather then just moving forward and calling names along the way then acting like nothing is wrong.
Well said from a group that wants to OUTLAW abortion, and build more prisons is against bridges and roads, AND schools, wants corporations to enslave us AND keep us poor, and a weak enough government to make it happen while being strong enough to monitor every pregnancy in the country.

I'll put cradle to grave anytime against just the cradle. That's straight from the slave owners playbook, make more slaves for FREE! What kind of mentality is that?

We can agree on the name calling though, but I insist, YOUR side goes first!


You might want to read up a bit on your Utopian nanny state before you actually put it into place.

Western Civilization and Culture: The Hitler Myth, Socialists And Social Democrats (http://westerncivilizationandculture.blogspot.com/2009/05/hitler-myth-socialists-and-social.html)
Interesting right wing BS! Sounds good, but I already know that the right wings version of history is flawed to justify their fears and insecurities, and the actions they take against those other people.

Interesting right wing BS! Sounds good, but I already know that the right wings version of history is flawed to justify their fears and insecurities, and the actions they take against those other people.

I guess there is nothing more to be said when you can ignore the truth. It's a typical position. Accuse then run and hide when it comes back to bite you.

How about some truth from your side? Maybe dare I ask a bit of reality?

Here are just some of the things you can look into as far as the constitution and what has been done so far.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2012/01/obamas-coup-to-overthrow-the-constitution/


Twist away.

Obama and his Leftist supporters see their window of opportunity to finally dispense with our constitutional republic and permanently install a ruling class that will “fundamentally transform” the country we love into their Socialist Utopia. They can almost see the finish line.Hello dad:

Talk about twisted. Any screed that begins with that pile of crap, is twisted. I read NO further. Why should I? Do I think I'll find some truth over there?? Uhhh, NO, I don't.

Excon

I guess there is nothing more to be said when you can ignore the truth. Its a typical position. Accuse then run and hide when it comes back to bite you.

How about some truth from your side? Maybe dare I ask a bit of reality?

Here are just some of the things you can look into as far as the constitution and what has been done so far.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/

http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2012/01/obamas-coup-to-overthrow-the-constitution/


Twist away.

Well so much for not calling names.

Lets try this again without the inflammatory rhetoric.


The National Memo Obama Versus Romney Offers Clash Of Capitalisms (http://www.nationalmemo.com/obama-versus-romney-offers-clash-of-capitalisms/)


Romney came up as a private-equity investor. Like his party, he believes in his heart that the way forward for the U.S. is to slash taxes for the wealthy even further so that they have more venture capital to invest in businesses.

Obama came up as a community organizer. Like his party, he believes in his heart that a great nation must invest in human capital through education, health care and infrastructure.


The distinctions get more interesting when it comes to their strategies for creating jobs. Republicans are right that the U.S. needs to lower the corporate income tax rate, which in 2012 was the highest in the developed world. But cutting individual rates in 2001 did nothing for job creation; and by keeping taxes low on dividends, the Bush tax cuts inadvertently helped bring about a crisis of capital investment in U.S. manufacturing, the kind of investment that Republicans claim to champion.

Investment by U.S. companies in new plant and equipment for manufacturing was the lowest in the 2000s of any decade since records were first kept in the 1940s. The net stock of fixed assets in manufacturing grew by only 1.8 percent in the 2000s, versus 25.7 percent in the 1990s.

The venture-capital answer is to just cut taxes further and hope that the market will self-correct and this trend will reverse itself. The human-capital answer is to use the tax code to incentivize investment not just in plant and equipment, but in research and development and workforce training (where companies in the U.S. are investing about half as much as a share of gross domestic product as they did a decade ago).

I hope I don't have to quote the whole article but its an interesting read with verifiable facts if you check them.


It's the human capitalists who have the better argument, one based on investing in basic research, education and health care, the kind of things that spur long-term growth and competitiveness.

Last week brought a classic example of the differing approaches. The tussle over doubling interest rates for student loans (scheduled for July 1) was a controversy ginned up for the Obama campaign, but it was also an acid test. Democrats wanted to pay for the lower rate with a modest business tax; Republicans responded with plans to scuttle the preventive health-care part of Obamacare, despite much evidence of its efficacy for both people and budgets

My case for people over profits.

I hope I don't have to quote the whole article but its an interesting read with verifiable facts if you check them.Hello tal:

I'm a "job creator". Yes, I'm only a small job creator, but the principles of capitalism work with the little guys too... As a "job creator", I've said here many many times, that my TAX rate isn't what makes me decide to hire or not. In fact, if I just hired based on my tax rate, I'd go broke...

Let's say that my tax rate went down. What am I going to do with extra help? Truly... What possible reason would I have for hiring people just because my tax rate went down?? If you say that I'd invest in a new factory, I'd say that if I NEED a new factory, but I'm going to WAIT till my taxes go down, I'll go BROKE. That's because if my customers need stuff, but I'm WAITING for congress to act, they'll find it from somebody else.

REAL businessmen, like ME, hire people when the market FORCES them too. That means MORE people are buying what I'm selling. They're only doing that because THEY have more money to spend.

Therefore, my conclusion is, the economy will grow from the BOTTOM up, not from the TOP down. Again, I thought right wingers UNDERSTOOD capitalism. No, huh?

excon

Ex , You think the economy should grow from the bottom up and yet have no problem with command and control economy ,directed by the central government, picking winners and losers ,and which markets should succeed ,and which should fail. That's as crony as you get in my book.

What the freak does the average guy care about who controls the freakin' economy? Be it government, or corporations, its real people who are affected adversely by decisions of either side.

The difference is that I can vote for government, but not a corporation, to follow MY interests. And lets face it, I will vote for changing things that keep me from getting screwed when the corporations who don't care about me and mine, decide to have a freakin down cycle. Trust me, been through more than a few. So don't tell me its nothing personal, just business.

I can give you a perfect example. Lets take Bain, and companies like them, and while I don't mind a greedy b@stard making money on flipping companies, BIG money, do they have to take my pension, insurance and everything I worked hard for? How is that okay with you righties?

How is it okay when corporations, your so called job creators have taken the money they made here and took the loot out of the country leaving a big hole in the economy. How is that okay with you righties? I mean how can you justify giving them even more loot, at the expense of taxpayers?

You guys need a few math courses if you cannot add the economic consequences of tax cuts by a GWB, a few wars and some policies that never appeared on the books for years until he left and the new guy made them public. Okay you got mad at what he did, but your sure haven't helped the new guy clean up the mess, or set the course right.

In truth, you do everything you can to keep the old ideas of extraction in place and set things up to extract more. Okay, if nobody goes to jail, can we at least get our money back? Naw, you righties think the time is just perfect to finally do what the depression couldn't (another failed corporate attempt at robbery by the original right wing greedy b@stards), and that's weaken government enough so voters have no say in what kind of country we have.

So we have tried the trickle down crap many times. Its screws things up every time we try it, so lets do something different for a change so the capitalistic business cycle doesn't have to hurt just us ordinary folks so bad.

I would settle for a golden parachute, to tide me over until somebody figures this out. Is that asking too much?

So we have tried the trickle down crap many times. Its screws things up every time we try it,

Under the JFK /Johnson tax cuts revenue increased by 25% but spending grew by an equal rate

Under Reagan revenues increased by 15 % but the ONeill Congress increased spending by 25 %

Under the Clinton /Gingrich tax cuts of 1997 ,revenues grew by 35% and together they slowed the rate of growth to 9% resulting in that balanced budget y'all brag about. It wasn't tax increases but a combination of tax cuts and reigning in spending that got it done .

Here are the words by JFK that the party that claims him as a hero seems to forget :


Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.



In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus

Under the Clinton /Gingrich tax cuts of 1997 ,revenues grew by 35% and together they slowed the rate of growth to 9% resulting in that balanced budget y'all brag about. It wasn't tax increases but a combination of tax cuts and reigning in spending that got it done .

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton (http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)


The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

He didn't cut taxes, he raised them, exactly what we should be doing now to pay for wars and tax cuts that have created this deficit. My man Bill didn't have two wars to fund, so he also had the luxury of closing bases.

Half of the present deficit is from the previous occupant of the white house that was kept off the books, and despite what everyone has alleged about federal spending, Obama has not spent more than hedid the first year he took office, which is extrodinary since there has been no budget.

Federal spending under Obama - Bing News (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Federal+spending+under+Obama&qpvt=Federal+spending+under+Obama&FORM=EWRE)

Under Obama, growth in federal spending slowest in 60 years – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star (http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/05/23/under-obama-growth-in-federal-spending-slowest-in-60-years/)

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor)

Obama: 'Since I've Been President, Federal Spending Has Risen at Lowest Pace in Nearly 60 Years? | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-i-ve-been-president-federal-spending-has-risen-lowest-pace-nearly-60-years)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/05/23/wrong-mitt-spending-growth-radically-slower-under-obama-than-reagan/

I know you righties don't want to hear those facts from credible sources, because that would mean you fell for the lies. There are 186 different sources to this story, so be careful what you believe.

I showed you mine, now show me that drunk soldier!

Please ! You're citing an Annenburg project source as "credible " just because it names itself 'FactCheck' ?
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997)

It was everything you claim you want... bipartisanship ;and because Clintoon realized that his 1st term was a disaster ,he triangulated ,signed the tax cuts ;controlled spending ("end welfare as we know it" ). By golly ,some fiscal responsibility and the 1990s are the 'good ole days ' suddenly.. except the left can't accept what brought on the balanced budget .

Don't change the subject, we are talking about NOW!! Clinton didn't have any wars to hide, so lets not compare one to the other. Or the policies of a healthy economy when taxes could be reduced. We don't have a healthy peace time economy to work with, and even you have to admit that King Reagan raised taxes when he had to without hesitation. Clinton could afford tax cuts because he also reduced spending.

This seems to suggest that the government be flexible and act quickly enough to changing conditions and events rather than stick to a idealogical policy for way to long and be inflexible to changes globally at domestically. But none of this changes the facts of today, since your goal is to privatize everything and make sure we are slaves of the "free market" that you think will bring the conservative utopia, and make us dependent on the corporate nanny state you envision.

But that's what conservatives have become rigid in thoughts and actions and scared of changes that benefit any one but them. To this day you will never admit to the Clinton tax raises were a response to Reagan's last recession.

Old arguments, we live in different days Clinton and Reagan didn't have a GFC to contend with, they had some flexibilty in what they could do. No one has any flexibility today.

Tom wants a free market utopia where profits skyrocket but it just doesn't happen, we are in the situation we are now because one free market chased the almighty buck and beggared the rest of us

King Reagan raised taxes when he had to without hesitation
Another left distortion. There was a deal made that included tax increases in exchange for spending reductions. Reagan kept his end of the bargain. The Democrat Congress did not . Reagan later wrote in his diary ;"The Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."
Same thing happened to GHW Bush .


Clinton could afford tax cuts because he also reduced spending. yup ,that is the formula

Tom wants a free market utopia where profits skyrocket but it just doesn't happen, Wrong ; 1 . I don't want any utopia 2. the market fluctuations are a natural part of the cycle and would self correct without massive government intervention .

Wrong ; 1 . I don't want any utopia 2. the market fluctuations are a natural part of the cycle and would self correct without massive government intervention .

Oh, I get it, the recession was going to correct itself without government, so tarp (tax cuts plus, state aid, and state road construction), was unnecessary, and the banks didn't need a bailout?

And all those out of work people effected by market fluctuations that are just part of the natural business cycle, can expect their jobs back any day now? Last I checked the business cycle came roaring back, better than ever, but what happened to the jobs?

I continue to argue that flawed government reaction and subsequent polices have extended the economic downturn longer than it should've lasted. By the way... the same thing happened in the 1930s .

And I will argue that filibustering any plans that had a chance of working by the republicans in an effort to undermine the government efforts is where the jobs went. Despite government spending being flat, taxes low, and corporate profits being through the roof, the middle class, has been eroded and the myth of the normal business cycle has been exposed.

I mean how much money do you capitalist need to circulate the money through jobs? Don't answer we already know, ALL the money ever created by mankind! And that's no guarantee for employment.

Its not the government, well NOT entirely, it's the business model itself that has sucked all the cash from the system, created nothing but a rich mans casino. This has effectively destroyed the economic circulation of the entire country. Best described as the buck has stopped here, in the pockets of a bunch of greedy, ungrateful B@STARDS.

The rights profits over people works well for the few, and enslaves, and impoverishes the many. You are right though, we have seen this before. And we see it again because all the precautions we installed have been REPEALED, by bought off government servants.

I'm late to this party so I'm starting from the beginning of the OP.

Is it my fault that after desegregation blacks self-segregate? Virtually every group in America is represented by some (or multiple) organization making sure their issues are front and center and their identity is preserved and celebrated - except for Caucasian males - I can't imagine why segregation might be a failure. As soon as some black kid is whacked by a "white" guy or some belligerent black college professor has a police encounter you libs cry "racism" in lockstep, knee-jerk fashion. Even words like "blacklist" are being banned (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4301441/Police-chiefs-ban-the-word-blacklist-over-fears-that-it-is-racist.html) because of 'fears' of racial overtones. The other day I wondered how long I could order my favorite beer (http://www.crownimportsllc.com/ourbrands/negramodelo.htm) without being called a racist by some liberal somewhere, or how long before they change the name.

I'm just trying to get along brother, it isn't me or my side intentionally keeping racism alive.

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, Liberal, fanatical, criminal. -Supertramp, The Logical Song 1979

Is it my fault that after desegregation blacks self-segregate?Hello again, Steve:

If you're the guy in charge of making POLICY, then it IS your fault.. See, you think they self segregate because of race.. I think they self segregate because of racist POLICY. The drug war is a prime example.

excon

Ok then, let's get rid of all the racist laws. Make me a list and highlight the racist part.

Ok then, let's get rid of all the racist laws. Make me a list and highlight the racist part.Hello again, Steve:

Didn't we do this once before?? Ok, let's take the drug war.

There is a 5-year minimum (http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/crack-vs-powder-cocaine-a-gulf-in-penalties) prison penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.. There's more.. A 10-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.

There ain't no getting around it, but I'm sure you'll try.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Didn't we do this once before??? Ok, let's take the drug war.

There is a 5-year minimum (http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/crack-vs-powder-cocaine-a-gulf-in-penalties) prison penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.. There's more.. A 10-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.

There ain't no getting around it, but I'm sure you'll try.

excon



Ill take a stab at it. In part the laws are in place and seemingly out of balance because of the addiction level. Crack is far more addicting then straight pharmaceutical cocaine. From what I understand there are many that can be addicted after the first few uses. It is far more dangerous a drug then cocaine.

Ill take a stab at it. In part the laws are in place and seemingly out of balance because of the addiction level. Crack is far more addicting then straight pharmaceutical cocaine. From what I understand there are many that can be addicted after the first few uses. It is far more dangerous a drug then cocaine.

That's a myth to justify the sentencing laws and practices of law enforcement. To get the guys in the hood, when most of the usage is done in the burbs.

Cocaine is cocaine, and none of it is pharmaceutical. Hospitals use cocaine legally in surgery. You need a federal license for it.

Nice job Ex. I will add to your list with the number of felonies a minority marijuana user gets as opposed to a suburban user, with a real attorney. Probation, and community service, as opposed to three years for possession. Not to mention loss of voting rights and that brings us to voter suppression. Another racist tactic.

Ex why did you drag that ole hobby horse out of the back of the shed. We wore that one out a while ago.

You seem to think that any law that restricts your ability to smoke dope is racist, unamerican and unconstitutional, but your constitution allows the government to preserve order and the common good and dope in any form leads to lawlessness and is not a good.

If the members of a particular racist group happens to be dope users this does not make the law racist or specifically directed at them. If perchance the members of another racist group preys on that first group by selling them dope this does not make the law racist

Come on Clete, Ex was specific, its not about the law, its about unequal application of the law. That's what makes it racist. If all the doppers were treated the same way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's the whole point.

Tal if your law and order departments target certain persons because they are easy targets, they may be racist or racially motivated but more than likely they just have to fill their quota for the month. If your courts levy penelties in accordence with the law are they racist? If your legislators formulate laws that are racist then your Supreme Court can examine them and strike them down. What part of due process does Ex not understand?

Now I would agree that there are far too many people incarcarated in your country for what are essentially minor offences and offences against their own person and that law and order is a more serious problem there than here but this is because of drugs and all the undesirable aspects of the traffic of narcotics. Some narcotics are a bigger problem than others and if your enforcement programmes focused more on economic penelties and detoxification than incarceration you may have greater success. This is about the manner in which the law is applied and it is about wider issues than drugs

Where I come from only black people sniff petrol, is the restriction of the supply of petrol to an inferior product so these people can't get their kicks racist. Should all vehicles be converted to diesel or LPG in a racist attempt to kurb the activities of these black people? Should white people be convicted of an offense for supplying petrol to black people? What Ex is saying is that possession of a rediculously small quantity of a substance which at that quanity is unlikely to addict should be treated exactly the same as a similar quantity of a highly addictive substance simply because a different class of people use different substances is ridiculous and your legislators had the good sense to see it before they filled your prisons with even more offenders as a result of class warfare

What Ex is saying is that possession of a rediculously small quantity of a substance which at that quanity is unlikely to addict should be treated exactly the same as a similar quantity of a highly addictive substance simply because a different class of people use different substances is ridiculous and your legislators had the good sense to see it before they filled your prisons with even more offenders as a result of class warfare

No they didn't, come see for yourself, racism by legislators and politicians is alive and well in America, and too sophisticated it seems for you to recognize its insidious forms. I agree with you on many things, not this.

Hello again,

Just because the racist legislators SAID that crack is more addictive that powder, doesn't mean it's true. They WANTED it to be true.. So do you.. It ISN'T true... It's RACIST. That's what's true.

Exocn

Hello again,

Just because the racist legislators SAID that crack is more addictive that powder, doesn't mean it's true. They WANTED it to be true.. So do you.. It ISN'T true... It's RACIST. That's what's true.

exocn

Very true. Racists can always justify themselves with good sounding LIES. They don't have to hang you for whistling at their women, They put you in jail for jaywalking, hang you in jail, and call it suicide.

Or get you for jaywalking three times and that gets you life.

And you call this freedom, liberty, democracy, an example the rest of the world should emulate

Very true. Racists can always justify themselves with good sounding LIES. They don't have to hang you for whistling at their women, They put you in jail for jaywalking, hang you in jail, and call it suicide.

Or get you for jaywalking three times and that gets you life.

As always more exagerations from a skewed view. Its no wonder when the truth comes out you have to refuse to see it. Why not concentrate on the problem rather then exacerbating it? Sure you want to call racism every time but you don't seem to want to stand up and do something about it. So every black person is being racially treated no matter what they have done is quite a stretch. When do you step back and examine the root behavior and say something needs to be done about it independent of skin color. After all blaming it on color is racist.

Your right dad, my broad brushed and general analogy was not trying to say ALL, but was pointing at where the real problems started, with the local law makers. They have made an industry from incarcerating specifically targeted youth, or groups of people.

Any law that takes advantage of those with socially created problems, and punishes victims of it with jail, is patently racist. Arrests are NOT the answer. Nor laws that make those arrest easy.

Its called profiling, and the way its done is patently racist. I mean come on, they could have put all that prison money into schools and policies that worked, and not disadvantaged, and got better results. That's what I think at least, and lumping people into one spot and parking a paddy wagon down the street is NOT a solution, it just perpetuates the prison system.

More prisons for targeted drivers looking for dope is not the answer, but looks great on paper. But the white guys with dope get away scot free. Just like little johnny in the burbs whose dad gets him a lawyer, instead of a plea bargaining public defender, with 15 other clients caught with a joint.

You really don't have to be a racist to push racist policies you know, but the results are the same. Aren't they?

Hello again, Steve:

Didn't we do this once before??? Ok, let's take the drug war.

There is a 5-year minimum (http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/crack-vs-powder-cocaine-a-gulf-in-penalties) prison penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 5 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.. There's more.. A 10-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, which is used primarily by BLACK people, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine, which is used primarily by WHITE people.

There ain't no getting around it, but I'm sure you'll try.

excon

You mean that 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that was sponsored by the good Texas Democrat Jim Wright and had 301 cosponsors including Harold E. Ford Sr and Charlie Rangel? What in the world were they doing sponsoring racist laws?

How about a link so we understand your FACTS!

No problem.

H.R.5484 Cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR05484:@@@P)

You might find some more interesting cosponsors, like ex's buddy Henry Waxman.

Good find Steve. John Dingell ,Harry Reid ,Bill Richardson... racists all of them . The truth is that about half the Black members of Congress voted for the law.

Although many media reports and images at the time of the act emphasized the spread of crack cocaine among inner-city minority communities, it is not clear that Congress foresaw the disparate racial impact these sentencing changes would have. Fully half of the African-American representatives in Congress voted for the act, many of them emphasizing the harm that crack use was causing to black communities.
http://www.enotes.com/anti-drug-abuse-act-1986-reference/anti-drug-abuse-act-1986

Thanks Speech, I was having trouble finding this particular bill. It seems to have covered a wide range of issues that were prevalent in 1986. As we can see it was a cooperative effort by both houses, working to reach consensus to resolve issues.

So are you saying that we have the same thing at work today, by congress, and local and regional governments?

Or have things happened that changed all of that?

We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?

Harold E. Ford Sr and Charlie Rangel? What in the world were they doing sponsoring racist laws?Hello again, Steve:

They didn't know it was racist. The white congressmen didn't know it was racist. They didn't investigate. They went along with the crowd. I'm sure somebody scared 'em into that belief.. That's how pot became illegal. Somebody scared congress and after a few minutes of debate, they passed a law. Do I think this is any different?? No..

Whether BLACK people supported this racist piece of legislation makes it NO LESS racist. You DID see those numbers. The congress was informed of their inaccuracies. Did the change it? A little bit. Now it's only partially racist...

excon

PS> I guess you could say that slavery wasn't racist either, because there were some black overlords... Same thing.. It doesn't work..

We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?

And it looks like this is the very reason why I call them Washington elites. The reason for being stuck in the past like that is because many of the members are from that era that never left.

I don't believe that the original intention of elected officials was to be a lifetime appointment. The idea being that they (the representatives) would have to live under the laws they created.

Would monies spent on the drug war have been better spent elsewhere ? Of course they would. There shouldn't be a drug war. But since we are talking of war lets not forget collateral damage. It happens in every war. In the drug war that would be the peoples that had their houses broken into because someone needed to feed an adiction. And who pays for that? Joe working Schmoe and the rest of us in higher premiums. The cycle continues. Muggings, murder etc. All in the name of drugs. If they weren't illegal in the first place we would be having a much different debate. We could afford to secure our boarders and feed people. We could spend on those social programs that are asked for that benefit all of us al a whole. Heck we could even get into space again. (I miss NASA programs).

My point being that things are broken. And the only true way to fix them is to look at them from an uninhibited angle. Even recently in the news we have heard stories of Obama smoking pot etc. And he went on to be president. SO maybe its time to take a much harder and closer look at this bad thing they call drugs without regard to race and call it as it really is.

Thanks Speech, I was having trouble finding this particular bill. It seems to have covered a wide range of issues that were prevalent in 1986. As we can see it was a cooperative effort by both houses, working to reach consensus to resolve issues.

So are you saying that we have the same thing at work today, by congress, and local and regional governments?

What I'm saying is ex gave me an example of one of those "racist" laws and I'm showing the law is not racist. No one intended for that law to disproportionately affect blacks, and no one is trying to come up with new laws to punish any particular group (except Democrats who want to punish the wealth, especially ex-patriots (http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2012/05/17/dems-defriend-facebook-co-founder-over-dodged-taxes/)), so can we cut the racist angle out?


We do have more FACTS of cause and effect of those policies these modern days, why are we not flexible enough to tweak them? Do we have to be stuck in 1986, or can we make some adjustments to correct the lack of knowledge, or changed conditions?


Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws.

Hello again, Steve:

They didn't know it was racist. The white congressmen didn't know it was racist. They didn't investigate. They went along with the crowd. I'm sure somebody scared 'em into that belief.. That's how pot became illegal. Somebody scared congress and after a few minutes of debate, they passed a law. Do I think this is any different??? No..

Whether BLACK people supported this racist piece of legislation makes it NO LESS racist. You DID see those numbers. The congress was informed of their inaccuracies. Did the change it? A little bit. Now it's only partially racist...

excon

PS> I guess you could say that slavery wasn't racist either, because there were some black overlords... Same thing.. It doesn't work..

Sorry, but I have to call bullsh*t when I see it, and that qualifies. The law is not racist, period, so cut the crap. You wanted honesty, that was honest and so is this - what I told tal, "Brother, I'm becoming more and more an ally on this front so let's strike a balance. Just cut the racist crap, I hate that more than ex hates drug laws."

Let's be honest shall we?