I think the assumption of evil intent by each side in the voter ID argument is interesting. It is most likely true on both sides. Republicans do want to disenfranchise the poor who won't have photo ID. They think they can absorb the collateral damage of old timers whose drivers licenses are expired, because they will be known at their polling station and not challenged. My Dad, a GOP voter, was in that position, it took an entire Saturday and a trip to Dunmore to get him an ID because my county in PA does picture ID's for limited hours once a week on Thursdays. Not exactly helpful to someone who needs a ride. Two evil parties, we have them. This time Obama is closer to the center and less evil so I may vote for him. The big issue coming is attacking Iran, unfortunately Obama has been seduced by power so either way we're bombing.

What's with all the racism, Bruce? You must be a Democrat! :D

Where did Reagan describe this "welfare" belief? I just ask, because you're full of shit.

When Reagan was running for re-election, he had a commercial with the theme of:

"Morning in America"

And in it, his accomplishments over the last four years were listed:
lower unemployment, lower interest rates, more jobs, etc.

Like Obama, Reagan took over when the economy was in a serious recession. Still, after less than four years, he had a very substantial recovery underway, and a stronger country, overall -- by any measure.

Now we see Obama, in a similar situation. Except he has NOTHING but cherry picked numbers to talk about, and almost NOTHING substantial in a recovery - despite spending Trillions of dollars on his plans. By his OWN statements, earlier in his term, his economic plans have been a failure, in every way possible.

1) Our unemployment rate is a failure, according to Obama.

2) Our job creation number (a negative net number, btw), is an obvious failure, according to Obama.

3) Our national debt and balance of trade, is a failure and "unpatriotic" according to Obama.

What ARE his successes?

1) Gays allowed to serve in the military -- long overdue, but Bush wouldn't have done it, so well done, Obama.

2) Michelle's better eating campaign - although I note that HER child goes to a private school - and serves Pizza (cheese or pepperoni), in the school cafeteria. :eek: (true, but just a bit of humor)
All I hear from Obama is cherry picked numbers, and platitudes about what he WILL do! But I've already SEEN what he will do -- and it's just more of the same crap that hasn't worked for the last 3 1/2 years!

Do you REALLY want four more years of these failures?

Where do you live that you need photo id to get a library card, adak? Here you fill out your info, get a card. Of course, a 'public' library reeks of socialism...the idea that any bum off the street can read a book? Hmmmph.

But it was a lovely little speech, cherry picking aside.

Everything old is new again. In the 60's they used money, guns, and lawyers (Zevon) for intimidation. In the 2010's it's just money and lawyers.

Is that so, well I'm old enough to remember it well, but that's not good enough so;
CNN
Anita
Womenslawproject
Junkland
Theroot
Friedman
Blackyouthproject
ionproject
And when you're done with those I've got a whole lot more.

Last four? What about the first four if you're going to compare Reagan with Obama... Mr cherry picker.
Yes he did, raising taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
Sure makes it a lot easier when you can raise taxes 5 times AND the loyal opposition actually cared about America instead of their rich Patróns.
Thank you for the view of the uninformed.
I'm sure you're shaken to the roots hearing a politician speak honestly, candidly, about the progress of recovery. You certainly don't from Romney, Boehner, or Ryan.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between Obama's plans and what Congress actually enacted. Like mom making a balanced meal and the spoiled brats only eating dessert.
For starters, we could add;
Getting out of Iraq.
Improving America's image abroad.
Passing health-care reform.
Getting Osama bin Laden.
Preventing a depression.
Won the Nobel Peace Prize. (true, but just a bit of humor)
And here's a list of a couple hundred more.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! I've never, ever, heard Obama say HE was going to do any of those things. I've heard him say His/Democrats, plans/goals are such and such, but since you were sleeping in high school civics, the president really can't do much because congress makes laws and controls the purse strings. HELL NO, BOEHNER MUST GO! :p:

Honestly, I've been disappointed in Obama's first term. I did know he was more center-left than most of his supporters believed. I'm glad he didn't go crazy trying to jam a whole lot of change at once, which would never fly.
My gut feeling, and it's just that, is after the last campaign whipped the public into such a frenzy almost 62% :rolleyes: bothered to vote, he felt he would get more help from the public pressuring Congress to support his plans. Like I said, it's just my gut feeling, but if that's true, he hadn't seen the mid-season TV schedule. I mean who cares about government when Superstars of Dance or American Idol is on.

From the depression to Reagan, the tri-lateral commission ;)(government, labor, and the 1%) kept everything in balance, not letting power swing too far in any direction. But since 1980 I've seen labor decimated causing real wages to decline, Congress bought by K Street, lock, stock, and barrel, and the 1% play the "Global Economy" card to put themselves back in power.

I honestly believe this election is the last stand against a power grab that we peons may never recover from. Mainly because unlike the Robber Barons of old, the current 1% don't give a shit about the country.

And it's not Romney so much, he's just a hey-look-over-here, the Congressional elections is where karl Rove & Co is directing their efforts. Well that and electronic voting machines. haven't heard much about them but I doubt they are any more secure than they have been.

So that's why Moi, a lifelong independent who even voted for Nixon and Bush (first terms only), is strongly supporting Obama...


and maybe Hillary in '16. :p:

Damn. Great post, Bruce.

You need your own talk show. You would have a million fans.

Yeah, that was awesome.

Probably get death threats and my peonies trampled. ;) But thank you.
Adak's a problem because instead of the crazy right wing zealots you see on the web, his posts sound rational. It's only when you get into the facts that they fall apart.

A friend of mine has a couple girlfriends she shops and walks with, who are tea partiers. They send her a constant flow of right wing emails, which she passes along. Half of them are lunatic scary, a quarter make sense if you just accept the facts as they state them, and a quarter you have to do some semi-serious research to find the flaws.

Those are the ones with links that back up the statements, but from dubious web sites. Then they'll say "Snopes says it's true" with a link to Snopes where it says it's false. :lol: They're counting on people being to lazy to click the link (maybe at work seeing the dozens of addresses attached), and just forward.

I got one yesterday that complained soldiers only get half pay when they retire after 20 years. I accepted that without checking, and believe it's a possibly legitimate complaint. Even full after 20, at 40 to 45, I don't want the job.
But the next statement was congressmen get full pay for life after one term. What? I know that's complete bullshit, but I've seen it written many times before, and probably these clowns believe it.

Next, to reinforce sympathy for the first statement, is a picture of a Marine that was really fucked up, blown up and burned, but alive. The kind of picture that puts a lump in the most dispassionate throat.
Obviously this Marine has nothing to do with retirement pay plea, he's a 100% disability case right now. Maybe disability just moves the same pay from 20 years to now? But if that's the case, say so, because it makes the whole thing sleazy otherwise.

I believe this is part of the job description for most of the "reporters" on Fox.

Thanks for this post Bruce. Facts are nice to see. :-)

Not true. I'm guessing you don't live in an large urban area?

Bruce can be grouchy at times, but he sees things very clearly, and if we all saw what was going on this clearly, we'd all be grouchy too. Bloody angry, in fact.

The present global situation is similar to the middle stages of the Roman empire, as the plutocrats eroded the republic and gained total control. Social demoralisation followed, and the Roman world became so brittle that a handful of barbarians was enough to destroy it. That is the future I fear.

Adak, although I disagree with 80% of what you say, please, keep it coming. Really. I like the cellar because it gives me a window into the way US folks are thinking, and with Merc on Hiatus, you're the chief republican spokesman here right now.

Boehner is not the problem. He saw the problem early. How often he made deals with Obama to only have it yanked out from under him by extremists - especially Cantor. How many times have so many Democrats and Republicans complained that Cantor should not even be in that room? How many long time most conservative Republicans (Simpson, Dole, Lugar, Gramm, Grassley, etc) complain about the extremism in their own party that is so destructive? Again, point to its best example - Cantor. Whose political objectives are quite clear - to make America fail.

How many times has Boehner made a deal to make American great? And then have Cantor yank it out from under him? Routinely. Cantor believes America will restore George Jr extremists if he makes America fail. Boehner is but another victim.

For Boehner to go, the Republicans would have to loose control of the house.:smack:

I think Adak IS merc.

disguised.

same vitriol, same personal attacks, same yelling-sort of painting everyone with the same brush.

It all seems so very familiar.

But Adak was registered way before Merc left.
I don't think of Merc as that sneaky - he had a more bull-at-a-gate style to life.

I'd thought of that, but Adak seems somewhat more mild-mannered than Merc. I'm pretty sure they're different.
And I'm pretty sure there is more than one devoted Republican supporter willing to relay Party talking points onto the internet. :)

Jump up into the Iran nuclear thread I started, please.

You're quite wrong about the Republicans not wanting everyone to vote, though. Voting is the right of every citizen, and the more who exercise that right, the more that right is likely to produce a better democracy. It would be a great shame if somehow, our voting percentage fell way off. Terrible precedent for a democracy, imo.

I don't know where Bruce lives, but in So CA, you need a photo ID for just about anything that involves a monetary transaction, without cash. You want to buy something with a DEBIT card (no less) at Fry's Electronics - you show your driver's license. You want a Blockbuster card, you show your driver's license, etc. You want to cash a check at a store, you show your driver's license. If the purchase amount is small, it may be waived, but most times, it's required.

Bought some tools awhile back in Sears. They wanted to see my driver's license, of course. Then they requested my SS number! I told them they could get it, but only if they were going to contribute to my SS account. ;) The clerk had to call over her supervisor.

As far as welfare goes, I've seen both sides of it. No doubt it's useful and a good thing, but it's also massively abused. Free school lunch programs are just one example. In CA, it started out with just the needy getting free lunches. Over the years, the people running it have let it be known that they aren't going to check your income requirements. I don't know if they ever did that check, but if so, they have stopped doing it.

Now the percentage of kids getting a free lunch every day has soared to over 90% of the kids, in some schools. These aren't all poor kids - these are mostly kids who were encouraged to get enrolled with their parents, in the free school lunch program. And I've never seen a single student who was ON the free school lunch program, who was EVER taken off - for any reason.

My favorite however, was a spinster we worked with for many years. Our business made her a millionaire, (and then some), over a period of about 18 years.

After she reached "senior" age, she would ask me to drive her down to the community center, every two weeks or so, to pick up her bags of free food, for low income seniors. By then, she was a millionaire a few times over, with substantial income every month. How do I know? We did her tax returns. :D

Which is one of the big problems with most welfare programs. They have (typically, in the past), had *NO* incentive for progress to get the person back into the work force, and off the public dole. Quite the contrary. Welfare recipients are viewed as "job security", by those working for the program itself. It's a lot of "nod nod, wink wink, and once a worker, now a welfare recipient, by the power of my pen".

They're getting a bit better about the incentive to get them off welfare, but that's only for some programs - not most. Once you're on it, you stay on it.

That's why we can't get a national healthcare system that works, and that we can afford. WAY too much fraud and abuse from both doctors (medical workers), and patients abusing ("working") the system, to make it affordable.

I haven't seen Bruce's welfare links yet, but I look forward to seeing them. Thank you Bruce.

I have only one handle, for the forum, btw.

Adak is much more reasonable and eloquent than merc.

But he also shares that trait: you just said a lot so I'm going to repeat everything I said before but leave out my gaffes that were pointed out to me.

Really have a hard time believing he was asked for his ssn at a hardware store. ;)
Everything I do at work ties into a person's ssn, and we are still very discreet about asking for it. Its a big no-no in the era of identity theft.

I think adak lives in 1957. But he has a time machine. ;)

I was somewhat taken aback by the use of the word 'spinster'... but posting from 1957 would probaby explain this.

I have a few problems with Adak's statements.

First, a community food program does not usually ask for financial information to prove you "need" their services. If you are there, you usually need it. Often, they require that you help them or the community in some way as "payment" for the food package. Been there, done that, in my poverty days. I'd much rather do something to earn that food than be given it, outright.

Secondly, asking for a SS# in order to make a purchase these days is a BIG no-no. If anyone (other than insurance or creditors) ask me that, they don't get my business.

Thirdly, as a parent with two children attending public schools, I can testify that it is absolutely not true that 90% of the kids get free lunch. In order to get reduced or free lunch, you have to fill out and sign a financial need application form. According to the FDOE data report, the actual number is 41%.( FLDOE free lunch). That actually ties right in with the number of children living in low-income families - 44% (Child Poverty). In my poverty days, my kids got free lunch. Now that I'm no longer unemployed and poor, they do not.

Additionally, as a former poor person, I can absolutely state that asking for and receiving "aid" is the most humiliating and degrading thing I've ever done. The very moment I could manage to make ends meet without it, I dropped it like a hot potato. There was absolutely none of that *wink wink nudge nudge* that you are referring to...more like, you lazy, stupid, dumb person who is getting a free ride while I, the person who signs off on your aid, is working hard and earning mere peanuts. Let me see how many ways I can make you feel subhuman to compensate for my disdain!!

PA, the civilized rednecks.
Perhaps they require a license (photo ID) in your neighborhood because you're hard on the Mexican border, and of course they would have to make it a uniform policy.
Say what? Who was your lackey last year?
I, unlike you, provided plenty of links for my claims about Reagan's welfare myths. If you have more questions you can damn well do your own research... or just keep spouting Karl Rove's bullshit.
I have no delusions about trying to sway you, your soul is lost. I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.

:)

I'm in California, and Reagan was our Governor before he ran for President, so I don't have to rely on hearsay, from others.

Also, I've worked with welfare housing and school policies, for many years. I've seen how it works, and how it frequently leads to co-dependency:

The recipient has welfare benefits suitable to live with:

*If they get a job, they lose those benefits.

*the job would probably be a labor intensive type of work, and they
would earn low wages.

*If they subsequently lost their job, they would get some welfare benefits quickly, but have to wait a long time to get back their full welfare benefits, again.

So why should they work? They're risking a lot, just to maybe work at low wages. Maybe not full time.

The people who administer and provide support for these programs, will lose their jobs if the program stops. So it's in their best interest to enroll more people in their welfare program.

Why all the anger?

If Obama had any reasonable successes with his policies, I'd support him. As the first black President, I'd love to see him succeed. I was living in the Deep South during segregation. Yes, it was UGLY.

Problem is, Obama hung out with radicals in college (according to him), studied their ideology, and he's picked up a lot of their socialist ideas.

Some socialist ideas I'd like to see (National health care), but his policy to implement it, is absolutely a complete mindless farce. :mad:

His other economic policies are likewise, a disaster. You do know that this is the worst economic recovery in our history?

You can choose to believe Obama's rhetoric, or you can look around, read the stats from the non-partisan budget office, and choose to believe you own "lying" eyes.

There IS a reason, why Obama's budget has never been voted for, by ANYONE, in EITHER PARTY. That's how far out his economic policies are.

You can have your emotional tirade any way you want it, but the above is a FACT, and it won't go away, because you don't like it.

We've had a LOT of political polarization going on in recent years. That's something we MUST get past.

A good plan, is a good plan, no matter who came up with it. And vice-versa, as well.

All of these ad hominem attacks against our leaders, are leading us down the wrong road, to an unhappy destination.

If Obama had good policies and plans during his time in office, I'd be supporting him, but he did not, and does not. He may look smart and cool, and charming - but the President doesn't need to be cool, or charming, or even appear particularly smart. I don't give a rat's patootie whether he appears on The Tonight Show, or not.

He needs to lead us into wise policies and practices, across a broad spectrum of economic, social, and as Commander in Chief, military, matters.

And I don't need the damn EPA telling me I can't use plywood to build with, thank you very much! :cool:

"Spinster" ?

[said in best Kensington Jewelers Elocution]

Oh, Adak, you're simply a caution!

DO try to come to BridlepathWoods for Christmas this year, darling. It simply won't be the same without you!

Don't make me pull out my full collection of 1950's vocabulary on ya! :D

I'm well aware of Ronny Raygun's history.
Yes this is a problem. In the beginning it was to help the destitute and to keep the ones that were deliberately made destitute by racism, from lashing out. As each subsequent generation passes, trapped in the welfare system, the greater the despair of escaping and less the stigma/embarrassment of being in the system. But I'd still bet most would rather have a job making a decent living wage. There's no quick way out of this mess, and the only slow way is education, as far as I can see.


Moi? I don't play well with others, and don't take orders from anyone. Yes, I will cut off my nose to spite my face.:p:
Point of order... Mulatto.
Successes, we covered that.
I have it on good authority that he shit his diaper as a lad, I bet the White House staff has to do a lot of chair cleaning. :rolleyes:
Oh yes, he needed radical socialists to point out one of our biggest domestic problems is we are getting raped of health care. Not by doctors, but Drug, appliance, and insurance companies, along with for profit hospital conglomerates. No way he could have know that without those radicals.:rolleyes:
Not implemented policies are to blame. OK :nuts:
Civics 101, congress controls the money.
Parties don't vote, the house votes or doesn't... Boehner's house.
Statements like that cause...
Yes, I know, and the Romney/Ryan plan is outrageous.
Tell O’Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, Beck, Limbaugh, FOX, ad infinitum.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you are willing to buy into the Romney/Ryan plan for the domination of America by the 1% tells me you're sadly misguided.
They have? Cite please.

... but come to think of it, where is UG these days? :eyebrow: :lol:

In southern California....

:eek:

Ahhh, southern California... that hot bed, birthplace of liberal radicals like Sam Yorty.

Back when the oil industry had starting to drill wells in LA harbor,
Mayor Yorty pushed through a zoning change over a weekend,
and the harbor was restricted to residential housing

... it stopped the drilling overnight !

Hang out with radicals In college? No. By the time you're in Columbia or Harvard law, you should know better.

The EPA had to back down on the plywood/oriented strand board issue, because they got a lot of flack about it, and there is no real substitute for these building materials.

Yes, they give off some volatile gases, but so do tires. We still need them both.

I guess ad hominem attacks have become the political scene mainstay, and general entertainment, as well. That stinks. I can't see one good thing coming out of that practice.

The House was controlled by the Democrats for the first two years of Obama's term. Nobody would vote for Obama's budget then, either.

Somehow, we have to learn to live within our means - or at least close to it. Obama's policies are so fixated on over-spending, it just boggles the mind. You may believe that a monetary crises could not hit this country, but it can, and it has happened before. If we keep spending a Trillion! dollars more than we earn, we will definitely experience a bigger crises than any we have known before.

Socialism works fine, until the money runs out. I doubt our chowder heads in Washington could make it work right, but it is possible, if you are well set up for it.

We are not well set up for it, however. Quite the contrary - and our politicians are nowhere near smart enough to lead us to that ephemeral goal.

Yeah. Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Lucien Carr and Hal Chase were all pretty non-radical types. :rolleyes:

...

Adak--

A brief point of order--you may not have to rely on hearsay because of your personal experiences, but when you offer such experiences as evidence in support of your argument, to all of us and everyone else reading your argument, such "evidence" *IS* hearsay. You dismiss xoB's links as hearsay, but they're examples of corroboration of his argument, and good ones too. If you wish to be taken seriously, I respectfully suggest that you provide similar citations to document your personal experiences to better support your arguments.

Boehner is my congressman, so I guess I have enough inside knowledge that I'm about ready to run for president.

Plus I've waited on him at parties. I'm gonna be queen of the world!

I too have often thought Boehner comes late to the party... can I be king ?

Certainly! I dub you King Don!

Reagan was a true conservative - everyone knows THAT. Conservatives believe that welfare - any program giving welfare - should be aimed at giving those in need a hand UP, not just a hand OUT.

Is that harsh? Yes, sometimes. Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair, people are not born with equal skills, and aptitudes, and we don't get equal parenting and education, etc.

I've been working on a program (computer), and just haven't gone through his links yet - but I'm going to view them before the debate today.

Politicians say a lot of things - Obama saying we have the wrong number of states, for instance, or Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia, from Alaska.

But look at their actions, while they're in office. Did Reagan cut Social Security? Did he increase our take-home pay by cutting our taxes? Did we in fact, have a significant recovery AND get our Iranian Embassy hostages returned, AND see the destruction of the Soviet Union's hold over several countries, during his terms in office?

Was everything perfect? Oh hell no! But our nation as a whole, was stronger economically, AND stronger militarily. Also, several countries were finally freed from the grip of the communists in Russia, for the first time since the end of WWII. This was all done (with the exception of throwing out the Cubans from Granada), with hardly a shot being fired.

If it didn't work, over and over again in our history, I wouldn't support Conservatism, as our political philosophy. I can think of a political philosophy that is much nicer - but it just doesn't work nearly as well. I believe we have to be pragmatic about what we do, as well as idealistic.

Thanks for backing me up on this. They don't check your income level, and people DO take advantage of it. You did not - but others DO. That's the point.

Tell that to Sears in El Cajon, CA. Tool department check out clerks. (I like most Craftsman Tools). They did it twice in a row, on separate days. Since my complaint, (and I assume the complaints of others), they have changed their policy.

I didn't say 90% was an average figure. I said the program was being massively abused, and some schools have 90% enrollment in the free lunch program, which is total crap. Low income, doesn't mean the family can't pack a damn lunch for their child!

Sorry you were treated that way. But again, this wasn't about YOUR experience. It was about the way these programs, as a whole, are being abused, and have no reasonable controls, and are wasting our money. The number of kids enrolled in free or subsidized lunch programs, exceeds the number that actually need it, by several orders of magnitude.

Which do you believe is cheaper and more efficient?

1) A bag lunch from home:
Sandwich, an apple or other fruit, and a small bag of chips

or

2) A selection of hot and cold foods and drinks: pizza, salads, sandwiches, rice, potato, meat, fruit, milk, chocolate milk, soda, fruit juice, and milk shakes, etc. All catered or served up by professional food service companies. Add in the cost of hot and cold serving tables, commercial refrigeration, and at least a basic kitchen, and you have a LOT of money tied up in lunches! (Actual menu will vary from day to day, of course).

There's simply no comparison. No way that "free" lunch costs less than $5 per lunch. More probably, $7.50 - $10.00
The bag lunch from home - probably less than $3, AND the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it.

The idea that low income families can't afford to give their kids a healthy lunch is CRAP. They've been doing it for decades, and what? Now they're suddenly too strapped for it, even during the Clinton years?

What next? How about giving them the latest Nike sneakers, as well?

My recollection was that it was up and down under Reagan. There were a couple of small recessions. They seemed significant at the time, but that was before the 2008 free fall, so they seem small in hindsight. And I remember that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending so we went from having small deficits to having huge ones. In fact, I clearly remember an issue of Time magazine showing a black hole sucking dollars in, discussing the Reagan debt and the statistic at the time that in his first term alone, Reagan increased the debt more than all the presidents before him COMBINED.

Reagan broke the seal on deficit spending and taught the country that it was OK to spend more than you had. I clearly remember Mondale in a debate accusing Reagan of writing "bad checks" to fund the government, and Reagan getting really pissed off.

"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." Go ahead and Google that quote and who said it (besides tw.)

Well, your memory is rather selective. The recession hit us under Carter, just as Reagan was about to be elected. Interest rates for home loans was up over 17%, and inflation was still strong. Carter's advice to us was to turn down the thermostat, and wear a sweater in our houses. :mad:

It was a bad recession, one of our worst ones, but Reagan had a plan - which was to destroy the Soviet Union in an arms race. The Soviets had been spending more $$$ than they could afford for at least 20 years already. They were at the "tipping point", but felt determined to match us in whatever military hardware we came up with. It was a matter of national pride and security for them.

So yeah, Reagan spent a lot of money, BUT he also got a LOT of bang for the buck. He was responsible for freeing more countries from the communists, than any president, ever.

By cutting taxes from over 50% for some categories, to a max of 33% iirc, and cutting it for EVERYONE, not just the rich, and not just the "somebody else" -- EVERYONE, he got the economy going, and we had a ROARING recovery.

Meanwhile, the Iranians wanted NOTHING to do with Reagan, and returned the hostages on his first day in office. They disliked Carter, but also, they recognized that they could pull our tail, as long as Carter was the Commander in Chief. Try that with Reagan, and you would get shredded.

I don't have the facts before me, but I believe our deficit did increase under Reagan, but you don't increase our military, with your piggy bank, and he started out with a large Democratic gov't - not the smaller and leaner one that he would have preferred. He did cut it down, but it takes time.

Without cutting taxes, you don't get the economy running as it should be. There is no motivation for people to expand, and spend on their business, when the vast majority of the money just goes to the gov't, anyway.

That's why Conservatism works so well. It doesn't rely on people being idealists, or on a gov't that will somehow, someway, know how to spend your money, better than you do.

You might think it's great having the gov't pay your way, but I'm saying, it won't be long before the gov't is telling you EXACTLY what way you can choose, in every part of your life. More government, means less freedom for you and me. Never doubt that. Sometimes you need more government, but you have to WATCH out, and be sure to also limit that government, when it's not necessary. Not just let it grow and grow, and control more and more. PULL IT BACK, from time to time.

Otherwise, you can kiss your freedom, good bye.

Here's what I hear:

"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country 'tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water


--e.e. cummings

I'm dizzy. That post is all over the place.
But at least I got a good laugh at this line

Let's talk about the Welfare Queen!

So I'm managing some properties, and here comes the section 8 housing applications. Yep, welfare moms.

And every one of them had the exact maximum number of kids, that was most efficient for collecting benefits, according to the size of the unit they applied for. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

Section 8 housing - √
food stamps - √
free lunch program for the school kids √
money back from the IRS √
food bank √
school supplies donated √
extra nutrition program for young kids √ (I forget the name of it)
low income phone service √
low income gas and electric service √
free medical √

and more that I didn't even know about.

These were healthy women - they could have gone to work, but why should they? They couldn't have a man in the house without upsetting the welfare free bus trip, but they had male "visitors" from time to time.

The best fraud cases I heard about, were the ones that had enrolled for benefits, in three or four states. They lived near the point where the state lines came together, and just "hopped" from state to state, to pick up their monthly benefits.

Two of my friends also convinced SS that they were "disabled", and got a check every month, that way. Neither was disabled at all, but they knew how to act up, so it appeared they had "Asperger's Syndrome".

I hired them for manual labor, from time to time. One of them, was a good friend, and died from leukemia before he was 35, at Stanford Hosital. OK, Mike was so ornery, he maybe did have Aspergers. ;)

RIP Mike.

Take off what's after the comma and that should be Adak's user title!

If you are going to make a case for your side of an argument, you might want to NOT make the case for the other side at the same time.

Adak, you're like the Conservative Tasmanian Devil! I can't keep up with you, I don't know how you manage to bat back all the challenges to your positions. I have one clue, you are just posting about your feelings and your memories (old and fresh, nothing wrong with that) but it's not a fair analysis of larger groups or systemic traits. You point out that glatt has a selective memory, but of course we all do. That's why citations help clarify what's been selected and what's been discounted. You speak in broad terms, but use very limited specific examples like definitions of big ideas. Now, this is a complaint about your style, not about your positions. I think you unfairly, improperly characterize a few things like "true conservatives", poor people, Islam, American government and civics for example when you talk in stereotypes and buzzwords and cliches.

It's like listening to one of those blind men describe the elephant. Yes, the trunk is like a snake, yes, the tail is like a rope, etc etc. But an elephant isn't like a snake or a rope. You fixate on a narrow example then characterize a whole swath of people based on that stereotype. It is poor critical thinking. Even you yourself retreat from many of these examples, ("I didn't say 90% was an average number", "the EPA telling me what plywood I can buy", etc.) but unchallenged, they stand as if they are Truth. Honestly, nothing of substance is purely one thing only. If it can fit on a bumper sticker, it's probably not so or not important.

I say YOU, because you're writing here, but I see this kind of communication, this kind of thinking all over the place and I find it objectionable. Depending on the motivation I sense from the speaker, that objection ranges from bemusement to frustration to anger toward those who I feel are deliberately and knowingly deceptive. I don't think you are in that category, but the bloviators from Fox News land are a lot of the time.

Like xoB, I value truth highly. To be able to discern truth, I need facts and information, and enough of them to be able to compare them. In my experience, it's rarely the case that one example defines a whole group. I need more facts to find out the truth (like I did in the diy thread about my range installation). Your input is one of many, but it doesn't seem very high quality since little of what you've presented is objectively verifiable.

So. Just a little at a time from me then. Tell me, what makes Reagan a "TRUE conservative"? I don't think you can judge "from his actions" as you correctly advise that all his actions could be described that way.

Selective reasoning and outright lies are continuous. Each soundbyte claim is missing the many other paragraphs necessary to actually know this stuff.

Reagan increased taxes mostly by raising SS taxes. Then took that money (without leaving an IOU) from the SS Trust Fund to pay for a massive increase in government spending. And still increased government debt massively.

As Cheney so often said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Or is that reality just forgotten along with Reagan's tax increases?

As a result, Reagan was the only president to be reelected when the economy was still depressed; when unemployment was so high.

What happened to increase employment? Tax increases. Reagan increased taxes. Unemployment went down. Clinton increased taxes. Unemployment decreased. Why does the rhetoric conveniently forget reality? Soundbyte reasoning.

Reagan did not do anything to end the Iranian hostage program - other than get elected. Later he tried to illegally sell arms to the Iranians - Iran Contra. To finance an illegal war in Central America. He even illegally mined the harbors if Nicaragua. This was good? Or just conveniently forgotten to have justify a 'liberal vs conservative' arguments?

Sadly, Tw, lies and liberals, tend to go hand in hand.

You may want to believe them, you may have been told them by the news media, but you just can't QUITE make those liberal lies, into FACTS: Such is the life of the liberal - so sad. :D

First, some good humor from RR, to lighten things up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo...eature=related

The problem with Socialism, in a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1790-2009.png

The "CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario", is something for your pipe dreams. The "CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario", is much more likely.

You can see the rise in the national debt, during Reagan's terms of office, as we went forward with a large amount of military spending, to bring back our military strength, and to break the Soviet economy, as they felt compelled to try and keep pace.

National Debt:
first year's budget is credited to last term's president, since the budget was his.

Reagan, in 8 years: 1.65 Trillion increase
12/31/1981: 1.028 Trillion Dollars
12/31/1988: 2.684 Trillion Dollars

An increase of 0.55 trillion dollars, per year.

Obama, in 3.8 years: 3.7 Trillion increase
12/31/2009: 12.311 Trillion Dollars
10/01/2012: 16.011 Trillion Dollars

And THAT is over one trillion dollars of increased debt, per year. :eek:

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm


Housing loan rates, Freddie MAC, 30 year fixed:
January 1980: 12.88%, January 1988: 10.38

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mor...tes/charts.asp


Jobless Rates, Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1980: 7.1% 1988: 5.5%

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04...ds=Annual+Data


Was the US Military weak before Reagan?
"
Between 1970 and 1980 the total number of ships in the U.S. Navy fell from 847 to 538 and uniformed personnel strength declined from 675,000 to about 525,000. Although the remaining ships were newer and more capable than those retired, the Navy now has substantially fewer ships with which to sustain its peacetime commitments or to conduct wartime operations.
"

What did Reagan do?
"
President Ronald Reagan was elected President partly on his pledge to restore America's military superiority. Caspar W. Weinberger, the nation's 15th secretary of defense, Weinberger served as the point man for President Ronald Reagan's unprecedented peacetime military buildup. Weinberger also championed the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense program, the Air Force's B-1B bomber, and a "600-ship" Navy. Weinberger took office Jan. 21, 1981, and served until Nov. 23, 1987, making him the longest-serving defense secretary to date.

In addition to strengthening the nation's strategic retaliatory arm with advanced B-1B bombers, deploying Pershing II theater missiles to Europe, and producing sophisticated Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles, his administration dramatically increased the size and capability of the U.S. Navy. In 1981 USS Ohio (SSBN-726), the largest submarine ever built and the first of her class, was commissioned. The ship carried 24 Trident I nuclear missiles, each one capable of hitting targets 4,000 miles distant.

Stepped up was construction of the 90,000-ton, nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers equipped with the revolutionary Aegis antiair warfare system. Also joining the fleet during the 1980s were Tomahawk land attack, Harpoon antiship, and high-speed, anti-radiation (HARM) missiles; improved versions of the F-14 Tomcat fighter, A-6 Intruder attack, and EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures aircraft; and the new F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. The venerable battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) once again put to sea with their awesome 16-inch guns and new Tomahawk surface-to-surface missile batteries.
"

What's our Naval strength in # of ships, now?

"
Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the U.S. military decreased dramatically. At one time, the Navy envisioned a need for a 600-ship fleet. At the end of fiscal year (FY) 1988, the Navy had a total battle force of 566 ships. By the end of FY 1998, this number had dropped to approximately 330.
"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...981-reagan.htm

Federal Tax Rates, actual, Married filing jointly, $50,000:
1980: 43%
1988: 28%

While cutting taxes, he also had the number of tax brackets reduced, simplifying the tax code marginally.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...d-20110909.pdf

Please go spin your fables somewhere else. Facts, refute fables, every time. :cool:

What has that picture to do with socialism?

People are only human, after all.

When you cut taxes, people have more money in their pocket. They buy more STUFF, they update everything from their wardrobe, to their car or home. They also modernize their business, maybe expand it, maybe add another truck to their transport fleet, open a branch office, etc.

Money gets MOVING around the economy, and that's what puts a recovery, into high gear. Don't believe me, ASK ANY ECONOMIST "What makes an economy strong?" He'll tell you, it's money, MOVING fast!

When taxes are increased, just the opposite occurs. People spend less - at home, and at their business. They hold off on making that risky venture of opening or expanding their business. They're worried that people who were flush with cash before, are going to be tight-fisted, and stay at home, instead of going out and spending money.
And they're right to worry.

It's not rocket science, it's just human nature. More money for our gov't, means less money for our economic engine - the private sector.

Who do you think pays for all the new gov't employees that Obama has hired? You and me, of course. ONLY the private sector makes our economy strong, not the gov't!

It amazes me that so many people, forget that. But then again, we're bombarded with liberal lies, day in and day out, and we're only human.

Maybe a picture of the decayed homes and apartment buildings in Cuba, would have been more instructive. There, the concrete and stucco buildings are falling down because they have not been painted or sealed against the rain, in so many years.

Now the stucco and concrete have been damaged by the water getting in, and they're falling down - literally, on a massive scale.

When you remove the private sector like Castro did, you have sure and certain poverty. Witness North Korea, China (before 1980), Soviet Union, Cuba, Greece, etc.

There is NOT ONE socialist country that has no private sector, that is not dirt poor. Only the private sector gets the real engines of an economy, revved up - you and me, and all our fellow countrymen.

WE are the engines of an economic recovery, NOT THE FLIPPING GOV'T!

As our national debt continues to grow, and our private sector is shrunk by the socialist policies that keep putting pressure on them, we just start to run out of money - yes, as a nation.

"Socialism only works until the money runs out", as Thatcher once famously remarked.

Since SS was going slowly bankrupt, Tw, isn't it just - I don't know, REASONABLE - to increase the SS taxes, to save Social Security?

Not that the poly-ticks won't probably rob it anyway later on, but that's the damn liberals for you.

Because conservatives believe that if you start a program, you FUND the program, and if the program is important, and it's going broke, you make the changes necessary to get it FUNDED properly.

Unfortunately, true conservatives like this, are few and far between, in Washington, or in our state capitals. In either party.

@BigV - am I keeping you busy? ;)

Mmm. There are several other factors that are probably more important to that picture than 'socialism' . Actually you already alluded to them in an earlier post about the soviet block. One of the key factors in communist states becoming stuck in a war communism paradigm was the absolute opposition of the USA to anything seen as a threat to capitism and the democratic economy. Opposition which was interventionist, aggressive and far reaching. Up to and including involving themselves in postwar French elections when it looked possible a communist party win was on the way.

There are lots of reasons communism failed. But being permanently on the defensive and ever actually getting to a stage where the state wasn't under overt and covert attack from a powerful enemy most certainly did not help.

As for Cuba, alongside all the above. I suspect longstanding sanctions, economic isolation and coastal waters full of mines may have affected their economic development.

Had your information sources been moderates, then you would not be posting half facts. For example, $0.55 trillion per year in 1982 is over $1.3 trillion in 2012 dollars. That is over $4.9 trillion in 3.8 years. Why do they forget to mention that part?

Extremist talk show hosts routinely forget facts to hype an agenda. To invent propaganda. Who spent more? Obama's $3.7 trillion in 3.8 years or Reagan's $4.9 trillion? Those are your numbers when intentionally missing facts are included.

Meanwhile, learn why your extremists talk show hosts have provided erroneous numbers. And that your arithmetic is flawed.

'Big dic' thinking foolishly measures power in terms of military hardware. So we built Ohio class subs to only have most of them scrapped. How often have Los Angles submarines done anything useful? The B-1 bombers was a disaster when started in the late 1970s. It could not perform military functions until about 2000. 20 years to make the B-1 useful and you are proud of it? The B-1 after 2000 only did functions that the B-52 (a 1950s design) was doing. Too much 'big dic' thinking without a grasp of reality.

Nimitz class aircraft carriers did what? Were so ineffective that air tasking orders even had to be manually delivered. Carriers could not even get tasking orders via satellites or radio like all other Air Forces. Most Navy planes had to stay back protecting the carriers. Could not reach targets without land based refueling. Eventually all Navy planes were withdrawn from attack due their inability to hit targets. But somehow you just knew those Nimitz class carriers are better because ... they are so big or because extremists talk show hosts said so? Which is it? Why does so much expensive hardware do so little? And you are so proud? Facts mean that 'big dic' thinking would quickly deflate.

Why do you spend so much time hyping military hardware as if that makes America wealthier, healthier, educated, innovative, and strong? It doesn't despite propaganda hyped by extremist talk show hosts. Worse, all that hardware makes extremists want to use it in more useless wars (ie Mission Accomplished). Too much military hardware and 'big dic' thinking justifies unnecessary wars and creates massive debts.

The US Navy is larger than the next 12 Navies combined. 11 of those 12 are close American allies. But wacko extremist talk show hosts tell the most naive that we have diminished military. You swallowed their lie; hook, line and sinker. Only an extremists can be so easily manipulated by bogus propaganda.

Having wasted $3 trillion in Mission Accomplished, what did that war accomplish? Well it created massive debts that Obama is stuck paying for. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to mention that Mission Accomplished was intentionally not in any George Jr's budgets? Mission Accomplished was financed by the Chinese. Now we (Obama) must repay the Chinese. Why do extremists talk show hosts forget to mention that? Why do you never ask damning questions? Moderates do. If you are not a moderate, then what are you? Uninformed? Manipulated by propaganda? A victim of half truths?

Education from extremists talk show hosts means you do not know what socialism is. Communism happens when top management subverts socialism. Cuba is a communist country. Why would anything confuse communism with socialism? Extremists talk show hosts. Had they been honest, then you knew Cuba is communist - not socialist.

But then extremists talk show hosts define a world as "liberal verses conservative" to keep their disciples confused and militant. You even confused military hardware with what makes a nation strong. Classic 'big dic' thinking.

Please learn facts so that extremist talk show hosts do not so easily manipulate you. Your many paragraphs demonstrate how easily they manipulate using lies, myths, and half truths. So bogus is your claim of a diminished Navy. Only the least educated would believe all that obvious nonsense.

Meanwhile, despite lies from extremists talk show hosts, Reagan increased (did not decrease) taxes.

More fun facts about socialism in action:

Here's what to expect from your new Socialist President, France:

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19814806

It has not been a great week to be French. Unemployment has just hit three million, growth for next year is estimated at barely above zero, and the popularity of (Socialist) President Hollande has plummeted.

...unemployment here just hit the three million mark and is going to keep rising.

Every week sees a new announcement of large-scale lay-offs. Just this week the last blast-furnace in Lorraine - once
the crucible of the French steel industry - has closed.

Taxes are going up, and no matter what the socialist government says, it is not just the rich who will be affected.

Business-creators are furious because the new rules mean that people who build up an enterprise from scratch will lose more than 60% to the government when they try to sell it on. More and more of the brightest and the best are thinking of moving abroad.

London! is now the sixth largest "French" city. :cool:

============== End of BBC Report ================

Why do I dislike Socialism? Because it doesn't work at all well, but liberals keep telling you it will work, and before long, they bring the gov't into EVERY part of your life, and your freedom and rights, go right down the drain.

It's time to Wake Up, about socialism!

The Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the FHFA, and the IRS are "extremist talk show hosts", now?

You're in deep lying waters, and you have a 40 lb. tool belt of lies strapped around your middle. I suggest you lose a few of them.

So you REALLY believe that a strong military, and a strong economy, somehow combine to make us weak?

Please... that is THE MOST pathetic argument, I've heard all year. :rolleyes:

Why don't you prove it to me, that taxes were higher in 1980 , when Reagan took office, than they were in January 1988, (or Dec. 1987), when he left office.

You can adjust for inflation if you like. It's only 8 years here, but the stats including adjustment for inflation, as well as nominal, are available at the url I posted with the data.

I'm sure if you dig around, you can find SOMEBODY whose tax loophole was closed by Reagan, and then had higher tax liability, as a result. But go ahead, it will be fun.

Because the basis of your belief system is a lie. Our country was founded on individual freedoms and opportunity - not gov't hand outs. The gov't will NEVER be nearly as efficient as the private sector. Not even the military is that efficient.

You should read up on just what our private sector has done for us:
http://www.economist.com/node/21555532

it's the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie, where the wicked corporation tries to take over the world, unleash biological weapons, destroy the moon, etc.

Again, it's just a fact. You can run away or slander them or whatever, but they're still THOSE DAMN FACTS.

Read it and weep! ;) ;)

So the B-1 Bomber, Nimitz carrier, Ohio and Los Angles submarines, 600 ship Navy, etc all made the American economy stronger? History says just the opposite. Why are you no longer defending those weapon systems once their value was better defined? And why are you imposing extremist talk show myths to misrepresent what I posted? That misrepresentation is a classic debating trick used when the many previous claims were too far from reality.

Since those 'big dic' military claims are bogus, you are now running to blame socialism for economic malise. Nonsense again. Strong economies are not created by "deregulation verses socialism". Or conservative verse liberal. Or "them verses us". Or 'big dic' inspired wars. Strong economics occurs due to innovation found in all free market economies, including France. Political spin does not explain what makes or undermines economies. Closing tax loopholes did not end the economic disaster created by a conservative and wacko president Nixon. A president who is slightly more socialist did not suddenly create a massive recession in France.

Posting mockery does not prove knowledge. It only proves you cannot defend those myths in previous posts.

A country prospers when better educated people do not promote the extremist political agendas that you have posted. Innovation is not defined or promoted in your accusations. Innovation is the reason for America's strength. Innovation is the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie where the evil liberal destroys corporations, unleashes biological weapons, and creates massacres. The real threat is someone who blindly preaches half truth propganda and the resulting hate from those extremist political concepts.

A real threat is one who sees solutions in 'big dic' concepts. As we learned from useless and unnecessary deaths in Vietnam and Iraq. But no. Extremists politic, rather than logic and reality, proves 'them verses us' justifies destruction. "Conservative verse liberal" rhetoric even justified hate of Muslims in Lower Manhattan.

It is sad that your politics rather than well proven historical concepts explain the world. Those politics historically justified waste, stilfled innovation, hate, environmental disasters, fear, and even words such as nigger.

Meanwhile, other terms not found in your politics (ie STEM, R&D, education) explain what makes an economy and nation prosper. 'Big dic' military and conservative agendas did not make America prosper. A tolerant society that even welcomes immigrants does. A society not polarized by rediculous "liberal verse conservative" hate is prosperous. Your extremist politics is a serious threat to what made America great.

Yes, Adak, you continue to outpace me by a wide margin.

I see we've strayed far from "the real mitt romney", fine, fine. But I still have some questions about some buzzphrases you keep using. You've still not helped me understand what constitutes "true conservative". And I've noticed another recurring theme in your posts. You keep decrying "a government hand out", and you contrasted it to "a government hand up" at one point. A couple questions--what is the difference between a hand up and a hand out? And what are these government hand outs you're so bothered about in the first place?

---

Thank you for the inclusion of the links in your previous posts, I appreciate that. I have some suggestions for improvement, but I must first acknowledge this first big step. Nice work!

So, what, France's economic woes are a result of socialism?

As opposed to the near collapse of global finance?

Socialism may or may not be the solution to their ills. But it certainly wasn't the cause. It staggers me that with such a clear demonstration of the dangers and downside of capitalism as we have seen in the last couple of years, still the bogeyman is the red under the bed, rather than the financial wizards and global corporate culture that have crippled whole countries and regional economies.

This caught my eye. I won't dispute the details of Herman's study; I don't know nearly enough about that period of history for my own country, let alone anyone else's. But...

Alarm bells always sound for me when I see someone cite a historian's findings as bald fact. That just isn't how history works as a field. His analysis will be replete with individual facts, but taken as a whole no analysis, no piece of research, no academic study (within humanities/arts/ social sciences) should ever be taken as the last word on a given topic.

I'm currently teaching historical skills and historiography to 1st year undergrads, and one of the first things they learn is that, unlike at school and college, the texts they read are not to be treated as unassailable fact. They are not to be approached in the same way as a school text book, where the word on the page is what you learn to be true.