Joe Scarborough

[calfoxwc]

Wouldn't you be inclined to think that liberals must get away from the belief that taxing those who work

out the wazoo will fund the solutions to everything?

Socialism is a fine idea until the money runs out, and it runs out very fast.

Then, you're screwed.

I'm not gaga over utopia. Conservatives and Independents are more oriented toward

reality. Some liberals even are.

And tax cuts worked excellent under Pres. Ronald Reagan.

High taxes have never worked. High taxes just plays into the class envy by the poor.

There isn't enough money for everybody to be on the federal dole. Not for very long, if only

nationaliztion healthcare. There isn't enough money to fund nationalized health care.

I heard on the radio the other day, an expert was saying that there are three fundamental reasons

why our economy has been crashing. And the "stimulus bill" only attempts to solve on of those three.

And the end result is, a devasting national debt, far more than what Bush stupidly allowed to happen,

and the wiping out of any confidence by Obama's own crisis mentality.

That expert says we are goingto crash very, very badly, and it will be worse BECAUSE of the stimulus bill.

[Westside Steve]

Aloysius said:

Watching him on Meet the Press right now. If the Republicans need a sane spokesperson for their party, this guy would fit the bill.

Up until the time it seems he may have a legit shot at running.

Then you guys will demonize him and you know it.

Before he got the nomination the guy you lefties loved was John McCain.

He also comes off as being an average, decent guy, which isn't something Rush Limbaugh can do (Whether rightly or wrongly, Limbaugh has a reputation for being a sleazeball. And his "I hope Obama fails" comments didn't help his rep with anyone outside the conservative base).

Surprised to hear you toss that particular crock of shit.

Honestly Alo, were you overjoyed when Bush "succeeded" in his plan to take out Saddam

Were you disapponted when he "failed" at his other initiatives that were blocked by the Dems?

Come on now, be honest.

WWSS

[osusev]

o good god cal, clearly you never took a poli sci class in college. European socialism post world war 2? and Canada with its system based from Britain and France...... your kidding right.

try wikipedia or any other encyclopedia... do some reading cal. The labour party in Britain must be a figment of my imagination or the nationalized health care system in france. Virtually almost all of europe has universal care....

That must not be socialism according to cal... lmao

There is no such thing as only ONE form of socialism cal and we practice forms of socialism already with Welfare, unemployment, social security and medicare.

Tupa... republican main principles are not these: conservative and/or center-right platform, with further foundations in supply-side fiscal policies and social conservatism.

Those are not the most basic foundation of what a republican is now? which is pretty much what I stated earlier... NO ONE can be pigeonholed exactly which includes individuals who are registered with either party.

However Republican base axioms are fairly simple and strait forward. Laissez faire ideas are completely linked to republicans and how they legislate pro business and obviously the stance on tax redistribution allocations. The conservative religous are the main makeup of your party otherwise Bush Jr would never have gotten elected nor Rush Limbaugh able to make EVERY republican politician (refer to todays news) kiss his arse.

your party thanks to shifting demographics are slowly relegating themselves to a minority position..... it might be permanently. The mostly White GOP of low population density states is starting to lose its influence. The neocons thanks to Iraq have proven to be the imbeciles they always were. The laissez faire deregulation pro business principles have fallen on their face causing a worldwide recession because of their greed being unchecked thru dismantling legislation. Science as it continually progresses has loosened religous stranglehold on society which is changing human understanding and morality.

That is the republican party as a generalization not a defining of every individual. Tupa your party was swept out of control for a reason... its base axioms had a spotlight and failed in foreign policy, domestic economics along with the fallout of the deregulation movement which has thrown everything into chaos. The CLEAR demographics state by state and even your convention clearly showed its class and racial bias.

[Mr. T]

Europe does not share the same freedoms that we have here in the states.

Their form of government is through government control and taxation, the same as their most feared neighbor Russia. The only difference is most european countries such as Britain & France have not gone out and killed the competirion. or do they?

And isn't it so funny how the left wants to name a conservative spokesman for us.

Its all about control, lets root R or D and in the end both get screwed.

[Kosar_For_President]

Everyone is making some valid points here.

One question I have always wanted to answer, are people's political views nature or nurture?

Just a bit of time to reflect.

[Aloysius]

Here's an interesting article from The American Conservative:

How Radio Wrecks the Right

[calfoxwc]

Sev, lol, that map of socialist countries WAS from Wikipedia.

There are a lot of other refs on it - I haven't found one that lists

Canada or Britain or Most of Europe.

Your last rant doesn't make any sense. First, you talk about socialist countries, and I disagreed.

I showed you why I said that, but you come back and say there is more than one definition of "socialism".

So, how am I wrong ?

Face it, Sev, America made a grievious mistake with Obama - he is arrogantly locked into

Marxist-Leninist theory, class struggle and economic manipulation of the American populace...

yeah, I really did give him a chance. He blew it already.

....And how many unborn children will be murdered because of Obama? That isn't "socialist" either, Sev.

....It's just, Marxist-Leninist with a cold heart toward the sanctity of LIFE.

.....LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS> all that Obama couldn't care less about.

..........Unlimited abortion

..........forcing all doctors to not refuse to take part in abortion

..........Illegally speaking of infringing on the rights of gun owners - and the legitmacy

of the 2nd Amendment.

..........Illegally speaking of infringing on the rights of talk radio, regular American citizens,

to criticize him - disregarding the 1st Amendment. The intimidation started before the election.

...........Wanting to nationalize health care, banking, eh... all industries?

...........Working to get most all Americans subject to government domination economically,

folks will have no choice to survive ...they will have to vote to continue the dependency...

or go it alone for freedom and individuality.

Infringing on ALL aspects of Americans' lives via taxes and unconsitutional law mandated

by liberal activist judges who are sold out to political rationalizations as their guideline, not

OUR CONSTITUTION.

Sev, you ever read Ann Rand's "ANTHEM" ? Seems it was about an Obama gov.

The claim that Reps are swept out and never return is LOL classically ridiculous.

We could have been just as goofy by claiming the same of the Reagan years.

Face it, for all of Bush's warts, he was elected twice. So was Clinton.

It's like political global warming to you and others, Sev.

It's just a temporary trend. And that trend is like a PENDULUM -

it swings one way, and later inevitably swings the other way.

Freedom does that. Just ask the former satellites of the former superpower Soviet Union.

[calfoxwc]

Yeah, that's why Dems and Obama frantically want to get rid of conservative talk radio.

Hint: It's way TOO SUCCESSFUL, AL.

It was there with the Reagan years. it was there during the Bush years,

it was there during the Clinton years, and it is successful.

The American political pendulum simply swung the other direction.

When it swings back right again, as long as we still have free elections under

ObamaMarxLenin...

conservative talk radio will still be there. It hasn't "killed" the Republican party any more

than it "made" Reagan win or "made" Bush win or "made" Obama win/lose.

Until free elections are done away with, the American people guide this country like a big

freedom ship.

Off to the left, steer back to the right. Off to the right, steer back to the left.

It's a hateful, biased article, Al. You posted the link to it... why?

[We need Tom Tupa]

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

Maybe you should stick to speaking for yourself.

[osusev]

ok Tupa, Republican base ideology is not exactly a state secret. You dont want to own up to your party's based principles that are now failed policies thats fine. The demographics are pretty stark as to the makeup of your party. that does not necessarily define each individual but the basic premise of the GOP is pretty set in stone.

Trickledown Reagonomics were shown to be a failed policy, Neocon interventionism is a miserable failed foreign policy, now the deregulation small government role in business has proved disastrous, the top heavy tax cuts have not shown overall economic stability(it will always be seen as the rich getting richer and wealth concentration), social conservatism is being relegated to the small city low density states/white population because of minority demographic growth rates. and non traditional "christian" values.

Rush Limbaugh has 14 million listeners and can make the head of the GOP in congress apologize or back pedal from any derogatory statement...

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

So let me get this straight What is the republican to do now since their branding is well tarnished.. Tupa you can say talk about myself all you want but your Party is struggling to find a way to be relevant. Sarah Palin politics/Bush rovian standards have proved disastrous for your party. There is no leadership or vision for your party and the demographic shift is only growing. IF Obama is moderatly successful he will be in office for 8 years which puts your party effectively out of power for the next decade. The population will continue to shift national election demographics and the Dems influence will only grow.

IF they actually returned to Fiscal responsiblity that would most certainly be a start, the party needs to shift AWAY from the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy to appeal toward all demographics. The pro business needs to shift to pro SMALL business with efficient regulation of large business. There is nothing wrong with social conservatism as long as it does not bring the religous pushing influence. Militirism is another problem with the hawk section of the party. The party needs to move away from the evangelicals and Rush/Hannity types. They would increase the overall appeal of what a republican used to b

[Westside Steve]

@osusev said:

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

No we don't Sev.

We remember a projected surplus that disappeared after the Clinton recession, the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11.

Then we remember unprecedented growth until Dems took the houses.

And eve if it were more than an opium dream to ya, we didn't elect DLC Bill Clinton and a Republican house this time.

WSS

[Aloysius]

@westside-steve said:

Surprised to hear you toss that particular crock of shit.

Honestly Alo, were you overjoyed when Bush "succeeded" in his plan to take out Saddam

Were you disapponted when he "failed" at his other initiatives that were blocked by the Dems?

Come on now, be honest.

It's natural for people to have mixed feelings when a policy they oppose is enacted: sure, they may think it's wrong or isn't going to work, but they also don't want it to leave millions of people unemployed and in poverty just so they can say, "Aha! I told you so!"

What Rush was doing was celebrating that second, ignoble impulse. It's like guys over the football board who cheered when the team sucked and Savage got fired. If you're more concerned about being right than about the team having success, you're not really a fan. You're just a Ghoolie.

And if that makes you a dick when it comes to football fandom, it's certainly not a good quality when you're talking about something that affects people's livelihoods.

[calfoxwc]

Apparently, Al, it isn't policy we're quibbling about.

It's the intentionally created crisis to manipulate voters toward "hope" and "change".

caused by the Dems in Congress the last two years.

And now, the determined attempts at underminging of our Constitution by Obama,

and also apparently, the restructuring of our entire country and way of life into a socialist

model.

Al, you guys can bring yourselves to admit Obama is in over his head, and what they are doing

is bringing us all DISASTER?

Really?

For you guys that cried and cried about your rights guaranteed by the Constitution because of Bush and the Patriot Act,

you think losing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, losing our right to private industry including personal choices of health insurance

is a good thing?

You want to sell this country out completely, in the name of buoying up the already diasatrous regime of Obama?

Surely you can't be serious.

[Kosar_For_President]

@calfoxwc said:

Apparently, Al, it isn't policy we're quibbling about.

It's the intentionally created crisis to manipulate voters toward "hope" and "change".

caused by the Dems in Congress the last two years.

And now, the determined attempts at underminging of our Constitution by Obama,

and also apparently, the restructuring of our entire country and way of life into a socialist

model.

Al, you guys can bring yourselves to admit Obama is in over his head, and what they are doing

is bringing us all DISASTER?

Really?

For you guys that cried and cried about your rights guaranteed by the Constitution because of Bush and the Patriot Act,

you think losing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, losing our right to private industry including personal choices of health insurance

is a good thing?

You want to sell this country out completely, in the name of buoying up the already diasatrous regime of Obama?

Surely you can't be serious.

LOL

[mz.]

@calfoxwc said:

including personal choices of health insurance

That's how you're spinning this???

Jeepers...

[Kosar_For_President]

mz. said:

That's how you're spinning this???

Jeepers...

That's why I was laughing.

[mz.]

It is pretty humorous, to say the least.

Cal shows he's more loyal to his HMO than to health care in general.

[Westside Steve]

Aloysius said:

It's natural for people to have mixed feelings when a policy they oppose is enacted: sure, they may think it's wrong or isn't going to work, but they also don't want it to leave millions of people unemployed and in poverty just so they can say, "Aha! I told you so!"

What Rush was doing was celebrating that second, ignoble impulse.

Ahhh bullshit.

Oh it would be true if anyone in his right mind was enthusiastic that Obammy's boondoggle would really work.

Ya see, those who haven't drunk the Kool Aid have serious doubts about it.

Many feel it will make things worse, a lot worse, in the long run.

I don't even hear a huge vote of confidence from guys like you.

Tell me Alo, you think it's a slam dunk for prosperity? It can't be stopped and them there evil republicans have no say.

Put up or.....

C'mon now!

WSS

[Aloysius]

No, I don't think it's a slam dunk. It may not be big enough, the tax cuts and spending may not be focused on the right areas, and we've never really dealt with an economic situation like the one we're currently in.

I think Megan McArdle makes some fair points here:

[osusev]

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

No we don't Sev.

We remember a projected surplus that disappeared after the Clinton recession, the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11.

Then we remember unprecedented growth until Dems took the houses.

And eve if it were more than an opium dream to ya, we didn't elect DLC Bill Clinton and a Republican house this time.

WSS

Steve the dot com collapse was BEFORE Bush jr was elected... It had NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON LEGISLATION

March 10 2000:Over 1999 and early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times[citation needed], and the runaway economy was beginning to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index[7] peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court. The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.

One possible cause for the collapse of the NASDAQ (and all dotcoms) was massive, multi-billion dollar sell orders for major bellwether high tech stocks (Cisco, IBM, Dell, etc.) that happened by chance to be processed simultaneously on the Monday morning following the March 10 weekend. This selling resulted in the NASDAQ opening roughly four percentage points lower on Monday March 13 from 5,038 to 4,879—the greatest percentage 'pre-market' selloff for the entire year.

The massive initial batch of sell orders processed on Monday, March 13 triggered a chain reaction of selling that fed on itself as investors, funds, and institutions liquidated positions. In just six days the NASDAQ had lost nearly nine percent, falling from roughly 5,050 on March 10 to 4,580 on March 15.

Another reason may have been accelerated business spending in preparation for the Y2K switchover. Once New Year had passed without incident, businesses found themselves with all the equipment they needed for some time, and business spending quickly declined. This correlates quite closely to the peak of U.S. stock markets. The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000 (closed at 11,722.98, with an intra-day peak of 11,750.28 and theoretical[8] peak of 11,908.50)[9] and the broader S&P 500 on March 24, 2000 (closed at 1,527.46, with an intra-day peak of 1,553.11);[10] while, even more dramatically the UK's FTSE 100 Index peaked at 6,950.60 on the last day of trading in 1999 (December 30). Hiring freezes, layoffs, and consolidations followed in several industries, especially in the dot-com sector.

The bursting of the bubble may also have been related to the poor results of Internet retailers following the 1999 Christmas season. This was the first unequivocal and public evidence that the "Get Rich Quick" Internet strategy was flawed for most companies. These retailers' results were made public in March when annual and quarterly reports of public firms were released.

By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a net profit. Investors often jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".

UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH? This only demonstrates you only PARROTING what you think is fact rather than actually understanding real data:

FACT: growth was below average in comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000. Overall real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 0.6% below the average of 3.4%, while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too has “failed to keep pace with the... average of previous cycles.” Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.[20][21]

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20051026/

"Price, L. (October 25, 2005). The Boom That Wasn’t: The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts. http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

"Price, L. & Ratner, D. (October 26, 2005). Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts. http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

The "projected social security surplus"... that "disappeared after the Clinton recession... again talking about something without even having a base idea what you are talking about. You like just spewing out partisan talking points..

Steve here is what the "surplus" WAS basically.. Social Security revenues is spent on government programs and retiring the federal debt, and the Social Security trust fund is credited with bonds equal to those expenditures. By reducing the debt, the logic goes, the government saves on interest payments and enhances its ability to borrow in the future to help pay benefits to retirees.

IN 2000 for the FIRST time the entire surplus was used for debt reduction....

Than in 2001 Bush Jr was elected and proceded to take our national debt from around 5.8 trillion to 10.7 trillion, mire us into 2 invasions, 2 occupations, 2 nation rebuilds along with long term stability in the main oil producing region and BOOM the surplus that DID EXIST a year before and the projected amounts for the next 8 years were GONE.

So during 9-11(When Bush told americans to spend money..... keep shopping) and the republican led and written enron loophole just prior to W becoming elected OIL skyrocketed from artificial speculation and the financial/Insurance industry deregulated went crazy and led us to the economic recession. Tack on the doubling of the national debt and yearly budget.....

Sure I am the one smoking Opium.