Thread: Econ 101: the Trickle-up ploy

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Agreed.

After 8 years of Bushwarconomics, the Democrats will have a real hard time turning it around.

Hold the faith, though, they might be able to pull it off, they've done it before.

Since they are largely responsible for the passage of the current entitlement programs and want to enact even more and refuse to reform and make viable the ones we have, good luck with with that.

Say goodbye to even more of your hard earned money.

But of course they will will blame the current administration when bad things happen.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

But of course they will will blame the current administration when bad things happen.

The current administration deserves that blame, but all they do is prematurely say "Mission Accomplished" while dressed up as a soldier ... after having skipped out on the duty he enlisted for, 'did not want to go to war', just wanted to 'play war'.

You don't think that a few hundred hundred $BILLION$ won't go a long way toward correcting what is wrong *over here*? You need to think again.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You don't think that a few hundred hundred $BILLION$ won't go a long way toward correcting what is wrong *over here*? You need to think again.

No, do the math.

Clinton's heath plan appx. $110 billion/year

Cost of Iraq war appx. - 100 Billion/year

To all those who want the cost of the Iraq war to pay for all the goodies, please see the above. There are so many programs the politicians desire to inflict on us.

At least the military is a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal Government.

The "War on Terror" (crappy name) was approved by a vast majority of the politicians so this should not be a party issue.
Over 3/4 of the Senate and over 2/3 of the House approved the Iraq War Resolution in the Fall of 2002.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Agreed.

After 8 years of Bushwarconomics, the Democrats will have a real hard time turning it around.

Hold the faith, though, they might be able to pull it off, they've done it before.

They never did in our lifetime and we are still paying for the.last time they "turned things around" and it did not happen for 10 yeas.

The DEMs efforts to block every proposal that could have a positive impact sure smacks of an effort to destroy the economy to get a Democrat elected President. Shame on them!

Michael and David. well said. keep on sluging away.

I want you for pres and vice pres. im going to sit out now.

bad tooth problem. ouch


ron

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Clinton's heath plan appx. $110 billion/year

Cost of Iraq war appx. - 100 Billion/year.

I'll use YOUR MATH, so ... you'd rather spend $100 billion/year KILLING 100,000s of thousands of Iraqis rather than making people over here well?

I KNEW Bush had a supporter someplace - all of them could not have gone into hiding (like so many have).

Bet you still think "Mission Accomplished" is true too.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is not supposed to be a political board either, it's just that at times when others take it beyond the limit others of us have to respond ... which, of course, just means they have to respond back, and it gets to be like a war, responding to each other without anything meaningful coming of it - just a bunch of dead people to be climbed over to get to "Mission Accomplished".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I KNEW Bush had a supporter someplace - all of them could not have gone into hiding (like so many have).

Bet you still think "Mission Accomplished" is true too.

I'm a conservative, Bush is not. Is that clear?

Mission Accomplished? Not yet.
Get over the the stupid sign on an air craft carrier which was political theater.
Like every politician doesn't do that!

Should we have gone? Most people thought so at the time.

We can play Monday morning quarterback all day but now that we are there I will not support cutting and running just when things are looking up.

Since this thread began talking about the stupid economic stimulus plan, let's at least keep it to economics.

It's still the unrestrained/uncontrolled government spending that is the real issue.

Thanks for your input Jerry

What can I say?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

What can I say?

The man landed on that carrier to congratulate the boys on that ship that had sucessfully completed "thier" mission. It is a shame that you have chosen to be a Parrot, rather than a critical thinker.

Those that tried to twist that into some suggestion that he was speaking of the entire war do a tremendous disservice to the men and women still in danger on the ground. It has since turned into a "political" sound bite that did not have any basis in reality then, and it doesn't now.

Jerry you are stuck in a hole with this left coast thinking. Open youe eyes!
dont get hung up in CNN, MSNBC News sound bites like that.

And yes my mom did eat dog food out of the can when Newt and the boys ran the house. Now that was a good sound bite.

yum yum yum.

Best

Ron

P.S.
If one is not grounded in conservative thinking they will go left every time.

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

P.S.
If one is not grounded in conservative thinking they will go left every time.

'Conservative thinking' usually means 'less government', which usually means 'more government interference to make sure you do things the way I do things'.

I've always stood in the middle of the road, I used to get hit by both sides, now, though, both sides are so far off the road, I'm pretty safe right there in the middle, I do, however, now stand on the left side of the middle - I don't need 'less government' creating 'more laws' (i.e., for you conservative types, that really means "more government" - just in case your math was not so good) telling us what we can and cannot do.

I'd rather go with 'more government' creating laws which give 'more freedoms' by those laws.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

'Conservative thinking' usually means 'less government', which usually means 'more government interference to make sure you do things the way I do things'.

I've always stood in the middle of the road, I used to get hit by both sides, now, though, both sides are so far off the road, I'm pretty safe right there in the middle, I do, however, now stand on the left side of the middle - I don't need 'less government' creating 'more laws' (i.e., for you conservative types, that really means "more government" - just in case your math was not so good) telling us what we can and cannot do.

I'd rather go with 'more government' creating laws which give 'more freedoms' by those laws.

Well said Jerry!
The yang to Bibler the cheerleader.

As much as I dislike the "Tax and Spend" party, a lifetime of observation has convinced me that by just about every economic measure its policies are better for most American families than the "Spend but Don't Tax" party.

The bottom line is that the Democrats are reasonably honest about what they will do: increase government spending and taxes to pay for it, while the Republicans are dishonest about what they will do: cut taxes while claiming - despite the fact that they know better - that they will be able to reduce spending to cover the gap.

The results have been pretty clear:

If one is not grounded in conservative thinking they will go left every time.

How far will you go socialist, Karl marx. would then progress into communism. You can stay in the middle you will go left every time.

from a Capitalis Pig.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I don't need 'less government' creating 'more laws' (i.e., for you conservative types, that really means "more government" - just in case your math was not so good) telling us what we can and cannot do.

Unless of course it comes to home inspector licensing legislation then any friggin' law that comes down the pike will... do-be-do-be-do for you.

PS: Of course the math still works, 10% of nothing remains nothing.

[QUOTE=Michael Thomas;42155]As much as I dislike the "Tax and Spend" party, a lifetime of observation has convinced me that by just about every economic measure its policies are better for most American families than the "Spend but Don't Tax" party.

I'm not a great fan of Repulicans, or at least today's version of the Republican Party, but if you look at your chart of the Clinton years you see what the Republicans can do if they are forced to compromise by a popular Democratic President. Republicans have made a god of Reagan, myself I think he was a good guy but a mediocre President, anything that he did accomplish he did with a Democratic Congress, again a Popular President of the opposite party, hence compromise. I like a split government, we've just seen 6 years of One Party Rule and it hasn't been good, that's why even though I don't like McCain at all I won't be upset if he is elected in November, in fact if Clinton is on the ticket I'll vote for him.

""As people do better they start voting Republican, unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing" Karl Rove

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I'd rather go with 'more government' creating laws which give 'more freedoms' by those laws.

More laws by their vary nature limit freedom. It's the continual tampering and expansion of government via Federal lawsthat causes most of our ills.

If you look at that chart of the Clinton years you see what the Republicans did when Newt and the boys ran the house. Clinton had nothing to do with what happend at that time.

The first thing Clinton did was kick up taxes retro mind you on the older people of the country. A Tax SSI.

It was the contract with America that makes that chart go up. look at the time line. 93/94

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

If you look at that chart of the Clinton years you see what the Republicans did when Newt and the boys ran the house. Clinton had nothing to do with what happend at that time.

The first thing Clinton did was kick up taxes retro mind you on the older people of the country. A Tax SSI.

It was the contract with America that makes that chart go up. look at the time line. 93/94

Best

Ron

This because Clinton was willing to work with the opposite party unlike Bush who ran on how well he worked with the Dem's in Texas and then with Republican congress totally strong armed the Dem's and excluded them from any legislation. My way or highway attitude. What about the end of the chart with Bush and Republican Congress? They went on a spending spree.
I love how the conservatives never give Clinton any credit. He was actually pretty moderate, welfare reform etc.
Can we all just imagine if Clinton had made all the blunders Bush has made with the war, Katrina, Budget Deficit, Economy. They would all be calling for his Impeachment.
Ron. Open your eyes Do not get caught up with Fox News and Rush the drug addict and sound bites like that.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

More laws by their vary nature limit freedom.

So, the Civil Rights laws reduced the freedom of the blacks? How do you see that?

And the laws giving women the right to vote reduced womens freedoms? How do you see that?

The list goes on and on.

It's the continual tampering and expansion of government via Federal lawsthat causes most of our ills.

No, it the human bias against other humans who are 'not like them' which causes most of our ills, and it leads to laws requiring what one should do anyway.

Go to a Third World Country with few laws, other than 'Do as the Dictator says', and you will see people with little to no freedom.

Put laws into place to prevent such actions and freedoms start accumulating rapidly.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party

The original House version:

• Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

• Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

You have picked 2 laws out of thousands to make your case that more law is needed.

How about the countless burdensome regulations and programs that will send all of us to the poorhouse.

You are right Clinton did some good things. One of the best things he did was get out of the way a let Newt and the boys fix things.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party

The original House version:

• Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

• Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

You have picked 2 laws out of thousands to make your case that more law is needed.

How about the countless burdensome regulations and programs that will send all of us to the poorhouse.

During the 60's it was the Democratic party that were the conservatives and were against the Civil Rights Bills. Your not comparing apples to apples.

Originally Posted by David Banks

During the 60's it was the Democratic party that were the conservatives and were against the Civil Rights Bills. Your not comparing apples to apples.

Conservative in what sense? And on what issues?

The meaning of the labels conservative and liberal change over time but it is clear that a larger majority of Republicans where in favor of civil rights in the 60 years than Democrats.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Conservative in what sense? And on what issues?

The meaning of the labels conservative and liberal change over time but it is clear that a larger majority of Republicans where in favor of civil rights in the 60 years than Democrats.

Conservative
Dictionary.com Unabridged Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.[/B]

The conservatives as is today are disposed to preserve existing conditions as opposed to progressives or Liberals. Both sides go to the extreme and there is the problem.
Here is another chart which shows this was a regional vote. The one you did not include. The South typically voted Democratic since the civil war because Lincoln was a Republican. They were conservative Dem's.
By the way Kennedy introduced the Bill and Johnson saw it through after the assassination. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Like I have said before they are all trying to divide us with their bull sh... so they can continue their ways. I bet we all think alike on a lot of issues. Ashame we could not all come together and find a good middle of the road candidate.Wishful thinking I guess, Rodney King style.

David,

It wasn't my intention to be deceptive.

My brand of "conservatism" is simple.

Limited government.(Federal)

Maximum freedom when not harming others.


I tire of all the politicians attempts to "fix" things.

All they have really done is tear the constitution into shreds in their vain attempt at second guessing the original founders design for the Federal government.

When the Fed puts it's heavy hand down on all the states, there becomes no place to run to avoid ambitious politicians ever increasing desire to control all things.

The founders envisioned a Federal government responsible for a common defense(of the participating states) and not the bloated, overarching, and incredibly intrusive one we have today.