How Can You Ever Trust a Republican With the Economy?

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Not just now, but ever. Let's take a look at a few indicators, if you please.


First, the national debt. Fairly constant from the beginning measurement period (1940) for the next 36 years. It goes up a touch under Carter, and then really begins to take off under Reagan. You see the slope begin to stabilize by the end of the Clinton administration (where it rounds off as if it wanted to go flat again), and then ZOOMS TO THE MOON under Bush.

If you do some broad estimates at that chart, it appears that Democrats were in office for less than $2.5 Trillion of our overall debt (approaching $9.4 Trillion at this point, and projected to eclipse $10 trillion by the end of 2009).

Y'know what? I'm busy today. Take a look at the charts put together on this excellent webpage, and you'll see just how amazingly inept supply-side economic policy is based on the combined 20 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush - and that you should be skeptical of anyone suggesting that cutting corporate taxes helps the economy. Because it isn't.

So let's not think it overly simplistic ways that make us think "Republicans want to cut taxes, so they're fiscally responsible, and Democrats want to raise them, so they're terrible, horrible people who want to take our money." Because I see, and have seen, no evidence whatsoever that Republican fiscal policy is a sound thing to ever rely on. The national debt is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the widening gap between the wealthy and middle class/poor in America is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the price of commodities is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the "jobless recovery" is the first Bush recession is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, and the recession we're currently in is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy.

So let's ask a real question here: Why would you EVER trust a Republican to handle the economy?
 
no I wouldnt, here a little more data to look at

Job Creation
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs

Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs

Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year

Government Spending
How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Democratic Average: $1.16
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Republican Average: $1.29

The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.

Increases in Government Debt
Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3

Democratic Total: 0.6

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1

Republican Total: 4.3

The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.

Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8

Democratic Total: 1.3

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4

Republican Total: 3.0

Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House.
The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes." USA Today, August 3, 2006​
This subject warrants a separate article, but, there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans' "Social Security Reform."
In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers' nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government's reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined "lockbox" to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that's taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.
Anyone who speaks of a crisis in Social Security is really talking about a problem that can be laid at the Republicans' doorstep. It's not class warfare, just simple arithmetic.

Sources:
Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB, On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget Revenues
Increases in Government Debt: OMB
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
First, the national debt. Fairly constant from the beginning measurement period (1940) for the next 36 years. It goes up a touch under Carter, and then really begins to take off under Reagan. You see the slope begin to stabilize by the end of the Clinton administration (where it rounds off as if it wanted to go flat again), and then ZOOMS TO THE MOON under Bush.
[/quote]

You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph... Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.
 
[quote name='BigT']You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph... Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.[/QUOTE]

Are going to even attempt to argue that the National Debt and/or deficit has gone down at all in the past few years?

I would really like to see this, the popcorn is going in the microwave right after I type this.
 
Americans don't trust either party with the economy. They wrongly believe that a tax break for those making over 200,000 some how means everyone gets a tax break. Same with a tax increase.
 
[quote name='davidjinfla']Americans don't trust either party with the economy. They wrongly believe that a tax break for those making over 200,000 some how means everyone gets a tax break. Same with a tax increase.[/QUOTE]

Last I checked the Democratic party is more trusted than Republicans on the economy.

Although I agree with you on the second part.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are going to even attempt to argue that the National Debt and/or deficit has gone down at all in the past few years?

I would really like to see this, the popcorn is going in the microwave right after I type this.[/quote]

Do you even read my posts... or do you base your comments on what you have imagined that I wrote?

The original post is a gross oversimplification. It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...

But, I do agree with the main premise that the Republicans of today spend way too much money.
 
[quote name='BigT']Do you even read my posts.[/QUOTE]

Yes, specifically "You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph."

Unless you are going to argue the projections are significantly wrong (and you really do not have a leg to stand on) then what is the point of that part of your post?

FYI Inflation/The weakening Dollar did not get to be that big of a deal until 2-3 years ago. A huge part of the reason for its decline is Bush's policies.

It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...
Click to expand...

Oh please he has quite a lot of power, especially considering a Republican Congress gave him whatever he wanted (including raising the debt ceiling 4 times). And this is not just about W he is after all merely following the same Republican playbook Reagan had and McCain will follow.
 
[quote name='BigT']Do you even read my posts... or do you base your comments on what you have imagined that I wrote?

The original post is a gross oversimplification. It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...

But, I do agree with the main premise that the Republicans of today spend way too much money.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but keep in mind that Bush outspent Reagan's 8 years of cumulative deficit spending (I don't know if you're old enough to recall how outraged people were by the national debt in the 80's, but I think you may just be old enough) in 5 years.

And control of Congress did not return to Democrats until early 2007.

And the majority of war expenditures (half a trillion by now, at least, with no signs of slowing or stopping) are not included in the budget, as they are voted on separately, as 'needed,' throughout the year.
 
To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this.

It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".

So the only conclusion I can come to, is the same one as elprincipe. Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".[/QUOTE]

Bush is not a new president nor is looking at Reagan's numbers "fracked" or "screwed". Try harder.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.[/quote]


Yeah, except the D train was on track and actually gaining some domestic good, while the R train was loaded with dynamite, bombs and other explosives to "give" out internationally.

Not really the same thing at all. One train does good while the other does evil. (Yes, starting wars is evil.)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.[/QUOTE]

This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I agree with this.

It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".

So the only conclusion I can come to, is the same one as elprincipe. Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.[/QUOTE]

Meh, this is a tired excuse I've heard before. There is undoubtedly some element of truth to the idea that some policies take hold in the longer term, at the same time that fiscal expenditures for that fiscal year are voted on, and spent (or overspent) during that year. Nevertheless, the link I've posted, and the data ikohn culled from CBO data, all show DATA. Instead, you offer up another undemonstrated and hackneyed response? My feet are getting tired of the same old dance, thrust. C'mon, already. Give us some data. Something to work with.

The larger patterns show that the large bulk of the national debt is the responsibility of Republican presidents. Minimizing the differences by saying "both parties are irresponsible" is nonsense.

As much nonsense as the GOP talking point of "every time you cut taxes, tax revenues increase." Because I implore you, or anyone - PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE - find me a year-to-year *decrease* in tax revenues. You won't find one at all, which ruins this nonsensical talking point: tax revenues go up every year irrespective of tax cuts.
 
Tax cuts not coupled with spending cuts are ridiculous and not going to work. That's why John McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts at the beginning. I just wish that instead of letting his view change over the years, he just stuck with that rather conservative view on it.

Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't govern conservatively. You can argue at length about whether what they spent was worthwhile or not...but the fact remains that all three President's spent a bunch of money. Reagan and old-man Bush, at least eventually, saw some tax increases to deal with some of their spending. Bush the Younger doesn't realize that sometimes you have to raise taxes if your spending is critical...or at least if you think it's critical. But, back on point, yes, they spent a ton of money, much of which they didn't have. Clinton governed more conservatively and, when you look at the makeup of Congress at that time, it makes sense. With more fiscally minded members of Congress, including Newt Gingrich, bipartisan agreements were built and the budgets were balanced. That coupled with the fact that the two branches were in different hands, thus forcing competition between them AND preventing either side from wasting excessive amounts of money that we didn't have...and our government worked more smoothly. That's the problem with one party ruling both Congress and the White House which is part of the multitude of reasons I want McCain in the White House. I'd rather have Congress and the President butting heads so that less excess is spent than them all just working together to waste everyone's money.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

As much nonsense as the GOP talking point of "every time you cut taxes, tax revenues increase." Because I implore you, or anyone - PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE - find me a year-to-year *decrease* in tax revenues. You won't find one at all, which ruins this nonsensical talking point: tax revenues go up every year irrespective of tax cuts.[/QUOTE]

Well I won't, because I don't really care. Imo, the headline of this thread should have "politicians" replacing "republicans" to carry more weight.

Besides, I will concede that Republicans have not been conservative, especially fiscally, since before the 80's. No news there.

There has not been such a thing as a true conservative primary candidate, that I know of, in my lifetime (since mid 70's). So as far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference between parties as time goes on.

[quote name='pitpizza']Not really the same thing at all. One train does good while the other does evil. (Yes, starting wars is evil.) [/quote]

Woah there. Did I just hear you say Democrats do good? Wow, how nice it would be to see politics in such a polarized way. That's why I envy Sean Hanity.

If starting wars are evil, isn't funding proxy wars evil? Isn't participating in existing wars evil? And especially, isn't having policies that create wars down the road evil?
They are all evil, son. Both parties. And I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe one party is good and the other is evil. That's 4th grade political talk.
 
First of all, I'm probably older than you, and even if I'm not, I'm not your "son." K?

Who is polarized? Any person of any party ought to view war as evil, and when you're the force starting it, yeah, thats evil. I don't give a shit what administration does it. Participating in WWII was not evil, and what are these policies that create wars of which you speak?

Is it peace, or diplomacy that starts wars? I'd say neither since the Bush Admin doesn't know the meaning of the terms.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Tax cuts not coupled with spending cuts are ridiculous and not going to work. That's why John McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts at the beginning. I just wish that instead of letting his view change over the years, he just stuck with that rather conservative view on it.

Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't govern conservatively. You can argue at length about whether what they spent was worthwhile or not...but the fact remains that all three President's spent a bunch of money. Reagan and old-man Bush, at least eventually, saw some tax increases to deal with some of their spending. Bush the Younger doesn't realize that sometimes you have to raise taxes if your spending is critical...or at least if you think it's critical. But, back on point, yes, they spent a ton of money, much of which they didn't have. Clinton governed more conservatively and, when you look at the makeup of Congress at that time, it makes sense. With more fiscally minded members of Congress, including Newt Gingrich, bipartisan agreements were built and the budgets were balanced. That coupled with the fact that the two branches were in different hands, thus forcing competition between them AND preventing either side from wasting excessive amounts of money that we didn't have...and our government worked more smoothly. That's the problem with one party ruling both Congress and the White House which is part of the multitude of reasons I want McCain in the White House. I'd rather have Congress and the President butting heads so that less excess is spent than them all just working together to waste everyone's money.[/quote]

This post really does a great job to summarize the situation, as opposed to simply yelling: OMG, Republicans are EVIL! Democrats will be a panacea! (and vice versa).

Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](I don't know if you're old enough to recall how outraged people were by the national debt in the 80's, but I think you may just be old enough) in 5 years.
[/quote]

Nah, at that time, I was quite young and not yet in the USA. Besides, I was putting up with another retarded government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

From my perspective, the fact that there was no food on the shelves in stores and that the government had a few of my family members on trial slightly outweighed the fact that the Americans had to pay a bit more for gas and were concernerned about their debt... ;)
 
[quote name='BigT']This post really does a great job to summarize the situation, as opposed to simply yelling: OMG, Republicans are EVIL! Democrats will be a panacea! (and vice versa).

Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.[/QUOTE]

Do you care to respond to what I wrote instead of to an argument no one made?
 
[quote name='BigT']
Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.[/QUOTE]

Well said, sir.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say equally irresponsible. At different points in time either party has been more irresponsible than the other. Of course, it mysteriously seems to coincide with that party being in power and wanting to dole out the cash to buy votes (of course, when you actually think about it, buying our votes with our own money, hmm...).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wouldn't say equally irresponsible. At different points in time either party has been more irresponsible than the other. Of course, it mysteriously seems to coincide with that party being in power and wanting to dole out the cash to buy votes (of course, when you actually think about it, buying our votes with our own money, hmm...).[/QUOTE]

That's something I was thinking about on the long drive home today.

Really, there are two layers to this country. 1) Each of us. 2) The politicians we elect.

It seems that WE actually have power. But WE tend to elect politicians that pretend they care about the country as a whole, but none of them do. What the politicians REALLY care about is making you as the individual happy.

What can the politician give you, from the U.S. Government/Treasury to make you happy and want to vote for him again? That's really all it's about. That's really all they care about.

So ultimately it's our fault, because we keep electing the politicians that bribe us best for what we think makes our own individual lives better, and not the country or what it stands for better.

Everyone hates socialism, until they start getting the free stuff.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yes, specifically "You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph."

Unless you are going to argue the projections are significantly wrong (and you really do not have a leg to stand on) then what is the point of that part of your post?

FYI Inflation/The weakening Dollar did not get to be that big of a deal until 2-3 years ago. A huge part of the reason for its decline is Bush's policies.



Oh please he has quite a lot of power, especially considering a Republican Congress gave him whatever he wanted (including raising the debt ceiling 4 times). And this is not just about W he is after all merely following the same Republican playbook Reagan had and McCain will follow.[/quote]

Let's keep it simple; I made 2 points in my first post:
1.) 2004-2009 on the graph is based on projections.
2.) The graph does not acount for inflation.

Both of these are, to the best of my knowledge, correct. I made no value judgements. The point of the post was to point out that the original graph has its limitations... you took it a step further and imagined that I wanted to argue that the deficit is actually decreasing under Bush and that the projections are wrong. On the contrary, I agree that Bush's spending has been excessive.


Inflation has been going on for a very long time; usually, as estimated by the consumer price index, it runs at about 3% per year and recent years have been no different. We'd have to go back to the '79 oil crisis years, to reach a time when we had double-digit inflation. Still, dollars from year to year are not equivalent and should be adjusted for.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0
 
...and they are adjusted for in other charts in the link I provided in the OP.

As for 2004-2007 deficits, I'll have to find the actual data there. As I said, since Bush out deficit'ed 8 years of Reagan in 5, there should be no lofty expectations of that curve in the OP (or an inflation-adjusted one) looking that far from reality.
 
[quote name='BigT']Let's keep it simple; I made 2 points in my first post:
1.) 2004-2009 on the graph is based on projections.[/QUOTE]

It is completely irrelevant that some of it is based on predictions.

That is not a limitation, unless of course you wish to argue the predictions are fundamentally wrong.

And you apparently do not so this part of the discussion is over.

Inflation has been going on for a very long time
Click to expand...

Yes, thousands of years in fact. You seem to think you discovered it and as myke pointed some of his charts are already adjusted for it.
 
[quote name='BigT']Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.[/QUOTE]
It's not really fair to adjust for it when the policymakers pursued the weak dollar policy for precisely this reason... I mean, it would be to their credit if all this other crap surrounding the economy had worked out the way they thought it would. Ownership society or something, right?

Like everything else, it blew up in our faces.
 
The last conservatives (fiscally) were during the second term of Clinton.. The "Contract with America" was awesome and worked for a while till they fragmented...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

Clinton had other economy help from spending nearly his whole term downsizing the military (and kissing China's butt)... Coupled with a tool that was awesome... "Line item veto" was given to Clinton for a short term by conservative held congress (until deemed unconstitution)... Thus spending was great during Clinton's last term... Too bad it fell apart...


But even with that great few years, the economy turned sour the last few months of Clinton's term (following Bills bright idea to sue Microsoft)..... but not blaming Clinton entirely here .. the economy dips and dives no matter who is in office. People tend to get tight during Presidential changes and it is a fact that a tight butt populace can drive an economy at least short term no matter what.

Now we have a sub economy of illegals that supports a leaching nation to our south and not one candidate with any balls to do anything about it (yes, I include Bush emphatically too here). Dims are kissing illegal butt left and right and McCain pushed one of the biggest butt kissing illegal legalization bills last year too.

This country has gone in debt during war a few times... but somethings are worth going into debt over... Dims controlled the prez seat during the start of WW1 and 2 eras and even Vietnam... but again, I don't care if we mortgage the house to get good weapons in our soldiers hands.

One of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war has been Murtha... but you ought to see his spending bills he proposes bringing home huge bacon on war contracts to his state. I guess the thread's author neglected to mention that fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzcjFSPdFFQ

I just wish Clinton had the balls to deal with Iraq when it was smaller instead of letting it fester. It's not Bush's War. It's Saddam's War. Saddam never once honored the 1991 surrender agreement (UNSCR 687) which included the complete verification of disarmament. It is US Law to overthrow the Saddam Regime as signed into US law by then President Clinton under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
Click to expand...
=============More==================

Interview with Bill Clinton... (yeah it is long)...
Source: The Atlantic Monthly March 2003 by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/clinton.htm

The '91 authority gave them [the current Bush Administration] authority to take military action. But they can't do it now because we're under these '98 restrictions on the inspections, which had been accepted. We need to be trying to deal with the substance, the product, which is the chemical and biological weapons and the nuclear program. But the process [is] needed to further international cooperation and do it within the context of trying to build the UN. Because if you just do the first without the second, the price would be truly extraordinary.

Now, on the occupation thing, I have a slightly different take. [From the Atlantic cover "The Fifty-first State," which he is pointing at.] My view is that we ought to be there but it really ought to be as internationalized as possible. Just like we did in Kosovo. Including the Russians and OPFOR [opposing force] and whatever. Let everybody do it. Probably they ought to guarantee the oil contracts. But, I've reached the... and, maybe, I know that.... It's a funny thing when you're not in office anymore. You don't do the security briefings. You have to understand. It requires a little humility. In some ways your vision is clearer, because you see the big things clearer. But in other ways your vision is cloudier, because you may miss the exigencies of the moment. So whenever I offer a judgment I try to show some humility, because I know that some things I see more clearly than I did when I was in, but some things I'm quite sure I don't see as clearly.

But I'm pretty sure this is the right thing to do. Press ahead with this thing, try to.... We knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. We knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again.
Click to expand...
Video below of all the democratic voices BEFORE Bush's term..

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
 
LowOiL, it fascinates me what you chose to bring up. And what you chose not to. We got Murtha, WWI, Illegals, Saddam, Microsoft, and the intentional misspelling of democrats all in one tasty post.

Food for thought, to be sure.
 
[quote name='speedracer']LowOiL, it fascinates me what you chose to bring up. And what you chose not to. We got Murtha, WWI, Illegals, Saddam, Microsoft, and the intentional misspelling of democrats all in one tasty post.

Food for thought, to be sure.[/quote]

Well for my first post to CAG... I had to make it interesting. :lol: But if it helps... I call Bush a RINO (republican in name only) too. I don't like McCain, don't get me started.... and well... I just don't have a dog in this election cycle... My man Duncan Hunter bowed out earlier though I will still be writting his name in come Nov.
 
[quote name='LowOiL']Well for my first post to CAG... I had to make it interesting. :lol: But if it helps... I call Bush a RINO (republican in name only) too. I don't like McCain, don't get me started.... and well... I just don't have a dog in this election cycle... My man Duncan Hunter bowed out earlier though I will still be writing his name in come Nov.[/QUOTE]

Odd how no Republicans called Bush a RINO until they finally figured out that he is dragging them down. There seems to be a pattern here.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Odd how no Republicans called Bush a RINO until they finally figured out that he is dragging them down. There seems to be a pattern here.[/quote]

Funny you pull from you butt a time I started calling Bush anything and then broad brush all republicans with one unresearchable off the wall comment. Lurch was the alternative presented the last election, and has proved with his continued voting record to be far worse on issues like illegals and national security. Bush is a butt kissing illegal pandering and often spineless with stoping government big spending. But he got handed Iraq and showed he had some spine when pressed. Clinton did bomb an asprin factory and fought for the Muslims in Bosnia, but for the most part he thought ignoring Islamic terrorist would make them go away. Lurch and pretty boy lawyer John Edwards would have probable been totally nadless.


The pattern here was I call a spade a spade and always have. McCain seems to be lesser of evils in this election coming up, but he is evil in many areas (to many to list here). I will not be voting for him... I base this action of not voting the lesser of evils on this scripture below from Romans 3:8

And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

The sad thing is that Obama and Chinagate Clinton make McCain look like an angel... is this the best both parties can muster this year... it truely is amazing how awful this election is shaping up ... one must give some thought to whether God has damned America according to Obama's pastor...

http://www.jeffhead.com/obama/obama-che-02.jpg




Now if want to prove your claims that I just recently started calling a RINO a RINO, well I use this same user name at www.freerepublic.com and have been a regular poster there since 2000. My 10k posts are open to the public to search and if you even have a shread of evidence, then post it. I call a spade a spade as I see it and always have, being I am new here (newbie central). I perchance found this place while searching for a new emulation forum to post at, the old emulation site I came from has basically disappeared from existance and this one seems to be fairly active (and surprisingly clean of the worse kind of mindless profanity most sites have).
I can see where you would think that not having a post record searchable would validate calling me anything you want.. but I provide posting history to reference if anyone is actually that bored to search.


-------------------------In other News... Code Pink is pissed when Obama caught wearing this tee------------

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rid....jpg?x=269&y=345&sig=B6mYueDM2L5sfbXfmPnEhw--

The Pink Puddin Heads http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4 withdrew their complaints when it was explained the shirt actually stood for U.S.Muslim Community...
 
[quote name='LowOiL']Funny you pull from you butt a time I started calling Bush anything and then broad brush all republicans with one unresearchable off the wall comment.[/QUOTE]

Off the wall? Either you are pulling my leg or just pulling your pud. W Bush has done almost nothing that has not followed the playbook Con's have used since Reagan, McCain is now nothing but more of the same.

So who the hell is not a RINO? What about other Republican Party leaders? After you rule out the President, the Republican members of Congress who pretty much gave him everything he wanted, the nominee who got a plurality of support who is left? The head of the RNC, guys like Ken Mehlman W's campaign manager? Rush Limbaugh (who as near as I can tell still supports W) the drug addicted gasbag? The gaggle of your fellow cretins at FR? Zombie Reagan?

As I said before Republicans and Conservatives alike supported W (and a surprising amount still do) until it started becoming political poison. It is nothing but political convenience to attempt to disavow him now and just as transparently dishonest as your ridiculous assertion that W was forced to invade Iraq.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']How can anyone ever post serious discussions about politics on a video games message board? :lol:[/QUOTE]
It's more a question of how long it can go without becoming absolutely absurd. This thread has long jumped the shark.

The typical over/under line is around 4 posts.
 
[quote name='LowOiL']

The sad thing is that Obama and Chinagate Clinton make McCain look like an angel... is this the best both parties can muster this year... it truely is amazing how awful this election is shaping up ... one must give some thought to whether God has damned America according to Obama's pastor... [/QUOTE]

Great points, LowOil. The last few elections have been horrible as well. Bush was never a strong candidate but he won because the Democrats managed to nominate a couple of totally incompetent and dislikeable prissy pansies against him.

This year it's McCain, Obama, and Clinton... wheres the barf bag when I need it.
 
Question: How Can You Ever Trust a Republican With the Economy?

Answer: How Can You Ever Trust any Politician who perpetuates & plays into the designed Left/Right paradigm of Democrat vs Republican?

As stated in the book Tragedy & Hope by Bill Clinton's mentor Professor Carroll Quigley:

"When the business interests ... pushed through the first installment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally."

"Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence of politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice."

"Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within the very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers."

"Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

It's so admitted and so in your face that it's not even funny anymore.
 
[quote name='level1online']

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers."
[/QUOTE]

And that pretty much sums up most of the partisan arguments in these forums, including the OP.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And that pretty much sums up most of the partisan arguments in these forums, including the OP.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, what a dickbag. If only he had said something like

[quote name='mykevermin']This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.[/QUOTE]

Then it would be cool. but, you know, since he didn't...

;)

I don't pretend to be nonpartisan, I don't pretend to act as if all Democrat ideas are inherently brilliant, but I don't act as someone who thinks that the Republcians have no good ideas.

That said, I do have to chuckle at level1online's "they're ALL criminals!!!" tripe.

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.

You know who would run the government like a "real person" and not a "politician"? The only people who would never want to do it in the first place. Those who are uninterested, unqualified, and opinionated but uninformed.

"We're gonna spend HOW MUCH on a bridge to nowhere? No, fuck that shit!" Someone who wants one term and out, and who doesn't suffer fools.

Sadly, that person is nonexistent. And, for the record, neither Democrat nor Republican.

So let's get back to the sad reality that we have to select from the choices we have, take a deep breath because none of them are perfect, and stop bitching because Jesus Christ himself isn't running for office.

Your candidate is corrupt, my candidate is corrupt - they're all corrupt. They do differ, ultimately, in the degree of corruption.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.

[/QUOTE]

Now I am far from a Ron Paul supporter. But I am quite curious about your proof of him being a racist.

I know a few places here and there have tried to say he has said anti-semetic things in the past, but googling around, I can not find anything he has said that is anywhere close to the vitriol of Jeremiah Wright.

So whatever your proof of his racism is, it sure better be an obvious order of magnitude more offensive than Jeremia Wright, since I think you were among those defending him from being called a racist.

Oh, and please don't take the "well Jeremia Wright isn't running for office" angle. This is about what YOUR definitions of racism are, and how one guy gets a pass and the other doesn't. Please describe HOW things Ron Paul has said are so much worse.
 
Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
Click to expand...

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_racist_anti_semite/

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

Now, these quotes are taken from his newsletter - which Paul claims was not written by him. However, if your metric of a person's racial problem is their mere association with someone who you deem to be racist (as appears to be your Obama problem regarding his association with Wright), then I would hope that a person whose name is the *title of the newsletter* in which racist items appear is sufficient evidence to tell you what kind of character Paul is.

On one hand, let's say he's lying: then he's a racist and a poor liar. On the other, perhaps Paul is being honest: which means he failed to monitor or read his own newsletter for over two decades. Do you want that person overseeing the government?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

On one hand, let's say he's lying: then he's a racist and a poor liar. On the other, perhaps Paul is being honest: which means he failed to monitor or read his own newsletter for over two decades. Do you want that person overseeing the government?[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Well then, if he denied ever saying those things or knowing about them, then I'd put him on the same level as Obama. Similar situations. Obama claimed to know a guy intimately for 20 years, attending his sermons, and claimed that he never heard that type of talk.

So if we are to believe both men, then to answer your question - no... to either man, for reasons you stated: they are either liars and probably racist, or very ignorant of what's going on around them. Not presidential material.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, what a dickbag. If only he had said something like



Then it would be cool. but, you know, since he didn't...

;)

I don't pretend to be nonpartisan, I don't pretend to act as if all Democrat ideas are inherently brilliant, but I don't act as someone who thinks that the Republcians have no good ideas.

That said, I do have to chuckle at level1online's "they're ALL criminals!!!" tripe.

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.

You know who would run the government like a "real person" and not a "politician"? The only people who would never want to do it in the first place. Those who are uninterested, unqualified, and opinionated but uninformed.

"We're gonna spend HOW MUCH on a bridge to nowhere? No, fuck that shit!" Someone who wants one term and out, and who doesn't suffer fools.

Sadly, that person is nonexistent. And, for the record, neither Democrat nor Republican.

So let's get back to the sad reality that we have to select from the choices we have, take a deep breath because none of them are perfect, and stop bitching because Jesus Christ himself isn't running for office.

Your candidate is corrupt, my candidate is corrupt - they're all corrupt. They do differ, ultimately, in the degree of corruption.[/quote]

Wow, you have absolutely no clue why I threw my support to Ron Paul. And all those reasons you just listed were NOT any of them.

All it took were three simple quotes from him:

"Let's bring the troops home.... NOW!!!"

"I do support a new investigation into 9/11"

"Let's abolish the Federal Reserve, and the Dept of Education."

Now, I have heard these quotes before, but never from 1 current singular candidate. And frankly, it doesn't matter to me if at the end of the day he just happens to put a "R" next to his name. I'm not voting for him because of that, It's not a f*cking clique or social club I'm trying to join. And if you can find more politicians, who will say those exact 3 quotes, then they'll get my support too.

But you won't find anyone else.... know why?

Because you'll have smear jobs written about you calling you an anti-semite, homo-hating, interwebz-hackerz, racist, tin-foil conspiracy kook. And the gullibles will eat up the "tripe" written by New Republic. What about McCain's "g00k" comments? Where's the New Republic article on that???

So... did you like the Psy-op they ran on you? Because many like yourself sure did fall for it. That hit piece, along w/ the electronic ballot box fraud got him exactly where he is today.... nowhere. You and all the others who said "Where's the revolution now??? har-dee-har-har, lolz!!!" sure got conned.

And btw, speaking of Obama, most of you guys continue to get conned; Even though, I don't support Obama, it's so obvious the election is being stolen from him. Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is actually working.... **shudders**

familiar with the original Op-CHAOS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

Never mind me, go back to sleep, you're government loves, Obama loves you, Limbaugh loves you, and..... (gasp) I LOVE YOU!!!!

And btw, no offense but

The word "Tripe" is such a faygetty sounding word. Everytime I hear that word I picture two prissy elitist asshole dudes, sitting outside a South Beach cafe, saying "This Skim-milk, Sugar-free, Mocha-Latte Frappacino is soooo f*cking TRIPE!!! waiter!!! hel-loooooo!!!"
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Now I am far from a Ron Paul supporter. But I am quite curious about your proof of him being a racist.

I know a few places here and there have tried to say he has said anti-semetic things in the past, but googling around, I can not find anything he has said that is anywhere close to the vitriol of Jeremiah Wright.

So whatever your proof of his racism is, it sure better be an obvious order of magnitude more offensive than Jeremia Wright, since I think you were among those defending him from being called a racist.

Oh, and please don't take the "well Jeremia Wright isn't running for office" angle. This is about what YOUR definitions of racism are, and how one guy gets a pass and the other doesn't. Please describe HOW things Ron Paul has said are so much worse.[/quote]

ok, here's some more info:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_hit_piece_scrapes_barrel_yellow_journalism.htm

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkYpviuX8M[/media]Btw, Jamie Kirchick is an admitted homosexual, as well as Matt Drudge who front-paged the article. In an email to fellow gay columnist, Kirchick actually admitted to writing the hit piece to "rile things up."
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Ron Paul does not have a problem with homosexuals, but as a former physician he does have a problem with Bug Chasers.

Read the Rolling Stone Magazine article, and decide for yourself if you too have a problem w/ Bug Chasers.... beware.... you could be labeled a homo-phobe, nazi, racist!!!!

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011508_homophobic_claim.htm
 
[quote name='level1online']
Read the Rolling Stone Magazine article, and decide for yourself if you too have a problem w/ Bug Chasers.... beware.... you could be labeled a homo-phobe, nazi, racist!!!!

[/QUOTE]

As someone who believes there is far more to life than text-book evolution, and believes in as small a government as possible, and appreciates religious influence on society, I'm already often labeled those things in today's political/moral climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top