I never said you lied when you wanted clean government. I am sure you do. We all do. What I said is that I don't think 'clean' government is possible. Just like I don't think 'clean' big business is possible. As any organization grows in size, it becomes more and more corrupt.
I said that over the last 30 years that "those who produce it" didn't and you comeback with a lecture on who you believe produces it? You wanted tax cuts so those who produce it can produce it. I know that refers to those who keep more of their money will produce more. Explain how Labor's tax cut can cause Labor to produce more? You have to compare life before the industrialists to that after it. The average American in 1830 worked a small farm at barely above subsistence levels. Yes, they did. Up to 1930, the average American worked in Agriculture. The Robber Barons' benefit sure took a long time. You have a high opinion about the Robber Barons. I do not. I might add that any movement to urban areas also affected the health of those who moved through pollution. And the Robber Barons did not care about that. Why would they move back to the farms after a "panic" was over? The yoke of government was light in the 1920s and there was widespread prosperity in the US. I always find it interesting when people think of the good old days even though they never lived then. Rosy memories come from thinking only about the good of an era. My rosy memories of the 20s are that Labor had more power and got better wages with the help of Herbert Hoover (who da thunk it). The bad data was that the richest .1% owned 42% of the wealth. People could buy things cheaper then but 99.9% still were losing their share of the wealth. The twenties mirrored the Bush era and led to the Great Depression. Why would anyone use the 1920s as a good example? The economy is so polluted by Big Government that this might just be what is needed. Once the economy perks up we can determine just what babies were worth replacing. You advocate, at least, another Great Depression so that things can be "fixed" after it. Sorry, vehemently disagree. The only moral thing to do is cut the federal government back to a 1925 level (about 7% of GDP) and see what happens. You have a strange view of morality. FM?FM enabled lenders to bundle mortgages of mixed quality and securitize them. Without FM/FM the lenders would be largely stuck with the bad paper they had to write in order to comply with CRA. FM/FM allowed bad paper to permeate the banking community. Wall Street created the mess to make money. FM/FM were just doing their job until the executives there also wanted to take part in the same house of cards. If it wasn't housing, Wall Street would have found something else. They saw an opportunity while knowing the regulators and admin were not regulating them to gimmick the system and make money. The question I have for bomac is this: Where did you ever get the tom-fool idea that government did anything but be a drag on the economy?... Government is a necessary evil. Well, as long as you don't want to put a biased slant on your question, I will still answer. If you think that government is only a drag on the economy, you would be arguing for no government but you don't. You see a value for government just as I do. We just disagree on what the government should do. Putting a percentage (7% of GDP) on how big the government should be is a cop out. What if that 7% of GDP government did only what I wanted it to do. You would then complain that the government was doing the wrong things. I think a discussion about "what is the waste in government spending" is a better discussion then setting some arbitrary number on the size. Instead of doing the dirty work, the right sets these arbitrary numbers and do not care about "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
So if we are not "outraged", we don't care. Perfect example of the hyperbole from the right. This "ultra liberal" want a non-political IRS. Going after a group because of their political views should never happen. Just spouting your "outrage" for political reasons is stupid. This "ultra liberal" want the damn problem fixed.
I want more regulation of government. Taxcutter says: More effective and efficient to simply deprive government of such power. You ACTUALLY believe the 1890s industrial US was some kind of "paradise" Taxcutter says: Compared to 1820s agrarian America it was. BTW, farm work is every bit as dangerous and grueling as that in coal mines. The air and water have been a little too clean lately. Taxcutter asks: What does that have to do with Bill Gates? Are you pathologically unable to stay on-topic? The ones I feel sorry for are the middle class and the poor. Taxcutter says: Reduction of government would do wonders for the middle class.[/QUOTE]
I know, for political purposes, you want to blame Obama for everything. I try to look at problems, find out why they happened and get them fixed. Fire people if needed, take them to trial if needed, demote them if needed, replace them if needed. You care way too much about the politics than solving the problem. I pointed the figure at Obama for adding more troops in Afghan. I have pointed the figure at Obama when he gives up negotiating issues just to get the GOP to the table. You, on the other hand, point the figure at Obama before there are any facts showing that he was a fault.
7 years?? No, more like 83 years when it first started under FDR. It's only become a full blown cancer in the last 7 years.
Polls are like Internet Forum Posts..... They're only as reliable as the maker.... in many cases they are as useful as Cold Cream in a Leper Colony and an intelligent reader would know the difference.
“The Robber Barons' benefit sure took a long time.” Taxcutters says: Big changes in a big, rapidly growing country don’t happen overnight. “I might add that any movement to urban areas also affected the health of those who moved through pollution.” Taxcutter says: US Life expectancy jumped markedly between 1840 and 1920. The life expectancy (men and women) in 1840 was 38 years. By 1920 it was 53 years. The pollution was more than offset by greater prosperity. “Why would anyone use the 1920s as a good example?” Taxcutter says: Boom times once you got past the short, sharp depression of 1920. That’s when Billy Durant lost GM once and for all. The decade before was wartime. The decade following was the FDR Depression. People were moving into the cities like crazy because there was work like crazy, and you didn’t have to work as hard as you did on the farm. “You advocate, at least, another Great Depression so that things can be "fixed"…” Taxcutter says: Wrong! I advocate reduction in the size, scope and spending by the federal government. A depression is a non-sequitur. “You have a strange view of morality.” Taxcutter says: And I have the same opinion of you. You have replace Robber Barons with a Robber Government. “If it wasn't housing, Wall Street would have found something else.” Taxcutter says: Conventional stocks and bonds had stagnated. They had to do something. “Putting a percentage (7% of GDP) on how big the government should be is a cop out.” Taxcutter says: I disagree. Not putting a cap on the size of government is a cop-out. 7% is a size that allows the federal government to easily perform the enumerated powers and otherwise get out of the way. 7% even allows for a surplus at a reasonable level of taxation to pay down the federal debt. Reducing the feds to 7% put 18% of the GDP back in the hands of the people. “…your equation looks like this; (power corruption + less government power) = (power corruption + more corruption) = power corruption” Taxcutter says; Where does the “power corruption” come from if there is no power?
Never said that. When we started realizing we could elect gifts from the federal coffers is when we start down the stupid society path. FDR initiated the first step towards total serfdom. We've just continued to pile it on over the years and of late, to an extreme. Reagan and even to a lesser extent Clinton (less his own healthcare policies) attempted to offer a balance to the size of government. Clinton, however attempted it through reduced military but did a fine job trying to mitigate how long some people reside on the government teat.
Seems irrelevant to a discussion about Robber Barons. Hasn't research and environmental improvements increased life expectancy? I advocate reduction in the size, scope and spending by the federal government. A depression is a non-sequitur. Yes, I have already pointed out how the right ignores the effects of their actions. Not putting a cap on the size of government is a cop-out. 7% is a size that allows the federal government to easily perform the enumerated powers and otherwise get out of the way. 7% even allows for a surplus at a reasonable level of taxation to pay down the federal debt. Reducing the feds to 7% put 18% of the GDP back in the hands of the people. That is your opinion based on what you think "the enumerated powers" are. But an arbitrary percentage says that you don't care about what is cut and what is raised. Again just based on your own opinion. Why is more important to state a percentage than to talk about what should be cut and/or what should raised? Would the percentage stay the same in a great depression or a protracted global war?
You first must take responsibility for being president, he never has, it is always someone else's fault
When people in Kansas are sportin' Obama stickers on their cars, you know the republicans are in trouble.
yeah, it couldn't possibly be because the GOP is led by and pandering to people who want to deny logic, science, and move America towards a theocratic nation. no it has to be because the people are becoming dumber for accepting evolution as fact, and believing that rape can induce pregnancy, and not believing Israel must exist at all costs because a bunch of ancient Middle Eastern Jews said so. right ?
If Obama cured aids, cancer, and single handedly landed a colony on Mars, the right would accuse him of killing jobs in the medical sector, and federalizing space flight.
Obama does take responsibility for being President. Can you tell me which President did not take responsibility for being President?
No he hasn't, Fast and Furious? No one fired, and he didn't know about it. Benghazi, he didn't know about it, IRS, he didn't know about it, AP scandal targeting journalists. All of this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with no one help accountable including the empty suit living in the white house. You stated earlier you wanted to find the facts and let the chips fall where they may, so why all the stall from Obama if he has nothing to hide?
You seem unfamiliar with what the Tea Party has become. Long gone are the days of it being about fiscal issues only. It has been corrupted to the point that it officially endorsed whackjobs like Michelle Bachmann and accepted money from........ wait for it......wait for it..... the banks that took bailouts! Spoken like a truly ignorant American who has never lived outside their own country. I Love that ConservaRepubs use a country that is officially Socialist, openly gives ownership of its major corporations to its politicians and where the air and water are so bad, that people die from both by the thousands every year. Hell, they wouldn't even stop wearing air masks for the international coverage of the Olympics. Oh and there's that whole thing about over 200,000,000 people living on less than a dollar a day. Great example. Yup! All we need to do is what the ConservaRepubs tells us! Live on poverty wages, with no benefits and no retirement! Then all will be well! Only in America are people stupid enough to buy that message.
