George Bush = Democrat (Fiscal Issues and WAR)!

[sealybobo]

Many of the liberals on this board hate Bush (and I hate himself), because they see him as a conservative war-monger Republican. However, besides social conservatism, Bush acts very much like a Democrat!

(1) Taxation: He represents high taxations (the tax reduction bill was his failed attempted to save face) and big government --> which are all things associated with the Democrats. Bush did nothing about the corporate tax (2nd highest in the world), nothing about the small business crippling payroll tax or the federal income tax (welll unless you are in the top 5%) - Reagan conservativism (which Reagan didn't follow) is about low taxations for everyone. Not just giving it to the top 5% (who frankly don't need it) and having everyone else have either the same or higher taxes. Its also about making our corporations and small businesses more competitive via lower taxation. His punk ass didn't do that.

(2) Big Spending and Growing Government: Bush received a large surplus from Clinton, what did he do? He turned it into a record deficit. He had grown the Federal government more than any other government. He has grown spending larger than any other government. Yes Congress passes the spending bills, but he has the sole power to give them the big F'up and veto them. He refused to do that.

(3) Pork Barrel Spending: More pork dollars went through Bush's Presidency than any other President. Pork goes against all fiscal conservative morals. Yet Bush allowed and even encouraged it! Douche-bag.

(4) Preemptive Wars! Bush arrogantly and erroneously invaded Iraq. Look at the preemptive wars of the past: Spanish American, Korean War, Vietnam, invasion of the Phillippines and the bombing of Kosovo/Serbia (also toss in WWI) were all started with a Democrat at the helm. When Bush invaded Iraq he acted like a Democrat.

(5) Easy on illegal immigration! While in Texas he was easy on illegal immigration. Then in white house he supported the Kennedy/McCain bill. Being easy on illegal immigration is a Democratic attribute.

Bush has never been a fiscal conservative! His policies more closely represent a Democrat than a Republican (of course minus the social conservative aspect) and that is why he was a failure as a president

1. This is just projection. We accuse you of doing this all the time. Thanks for proving you do it.

2. Maybe the tax and spending that occurs is the reality of things? You don't like what your taxes are going towards because you are a rigthy and Obama is a lefty. But you don't complain when it's Defense spending waste. Think about that.

3. All the bleeding heart liberals in the country aren't keeping illegals here. That would be the people paying them to stay. If they weren't getting paid, they'd leave tomorrow. So who owns these small business' that employ illegals? That would be a GOP issue. The bleeding hearts aren't funding the illegals. Another thing you should think about. You are brainwashed and gullable.

4. Preemptive war? Do you know what PNAC is? The GOP was planning Iraq since the 90's. They even blame Clinton for not doing it, although they would have blamed him for the quagmire if he did. The GOP even pre planned, knowing ahead of time they might need to steal a few states, stole Florida in 2000 and then Ohio in 2004. Who knows what other states didn't even really vote for Bush yet went to him.

5. Who do you want to pay for all of the GOP's spending from 2000-2006? You approved of the Iraq war, now you must pay for it. So how do you dare clammour for tax breaks? Bitch, it's time to pay your credit card bills!

6. Bush ignored America. Time for a facelift. All the social programs he ignored need attention. FDR got 30 years of good economy and built a strong middle class with a similar economic stimulous package. Are you rich? I doubt it. Anyone who is GOP is either really rich or stupid. Which are you?

7. Your party lost. Bush barely won and ran with his agenda. Obama slaughtered McCain, so a new sheriff is in town. The American people voted you out and the Dems in. The Dems are going to get their way. I call you the Grand Obstructionist Party.

8. You are funny.

 

[Sinatra]

Republicans chose Dumbya four times. Every chance they had to choose between him, and another republican or candiate, they chose bush. Two national GOP campaigns, and two national elections.

If bush is a democrat, why did democrats not vote for him, and republicans selected him not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but four times?

Seeming lack of viable alternatives.

Then the choice was between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry.

As frustrating as Bush often was - Gore and Kerry....oh God.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why don't you simply admit you were wrong.

I don't know what "try looking at the big picture" means. Its not a substantive rebuttal to my numbers or link in any way. Its a slogan.

The numbers don't lie.

In the last half centry republicans have run up exponetially more debt than democratic adminstrations. I assume you don't dispute the actual numbers.

Try looking at intragovernmental spending as well... this has been shown time and time again.. where ones like Clinton tried to hide the spending to keep with the myth of the 'surplus'

Again... each and every administration and congress has been a disappointment on the spending issue... but it does not mean that even when I have disagreed on the huge governmental spending of the REPs, that I will go away from the conservative model and platform and think that the DEMs are better... I would rather try and call for and support REPs who want to go away from the bad habits that we have seen under the likes of W on governmental spending

Clinton spend cash no doubt! However, if you are going to spend make sure there is a surplus! He did that!

There was NO FUCKING SURPLUS

Try understanding the big picture on what is being done with governmental budgeting/spending/etc... just because you made more than what you spent on the budget you wrote out according to your paycheck, credit card bills, etc; but borrowed money from Uncle Fred in the family, to spend in another way, does not mean that you had a surplus at the end of the year

 

[Sinatra]

Try looking at intragovernmental spending as well... this has been shown time and time again.. where ones like Clinton tried to hide the spending to keep with the myth of the 'surplus'

Again... each and every administration and congress has been a disappointment on the spending issue... but it does not mean that even when I have disagreed on the huge governmental spending of the REPs, that I will go away from the conservative model and platform and think that the DEMs are better... I would rather try and call for and support REPs who want to go away from the bad habits that we have seen under the likes of W on governmental spending

Clinton spend cash no doubt! However, if you are going to spend make sure there is a surplus! He did that!

There was NO FUCKING SURPLUS

Try understanding the big picture on what is being done with governmental budgeting/spending/etc... just because you made more than what you spent on the budget you wrote out according to your paycheck, credit card bills, etc; but borrowed money from Uncle Fred in the family, to spend in another way, does not mean that you had a surplus at the end of the year

There was a surples - and there wasn't.

The myth of the Clinton years was propped up greatly by the media.

Clinton fought tooth and nail every measure proposed by the Contract With America Republican Congress (real Republicans, not the RHINOS we have today) and it was THAT, in addition to the drastic cuts in defense spending (peace dividend) that resulted in a momentary "Budget Surplus".

That being said, Bush II and the Republican Congress of those first six years, were involved in some horrific spending themselves.

Now with Obama and the Dims running things, this situation will not only continue, but likely worsen greatly.

This porkulus bill will come back to haunt Obama. The media is already starting to awaken from its slumber just a bit and ask a few questions of the new President. What is remarkable is watching Obama's indignation at having to explain himself. This gentleman has never actually led anything beyond his own self interest - and now he is participating in a role he is sorely incapable of pulling off.

I figured Obama had about a 6-month honeymoon period.

Better make that about 3 weeks.

Things are gonna get interesting...

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans chose Dumbya four times. Every chance they had to choose between him, and another republican or candiate, they chose bush. Two national GOP campaigns, and two national elections.

If bush is a democrat, why did democrats not vote for him, and republicans selected him not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but four times?

Seeming lack of viable alternatives.

Then the choice was between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry.

As frustrating as Bush often was - Gore and Kerry....oh God.

Do you still not realize just how much damage Bush did to America, the middle class, our reputation, the treasury, the constitution, the rule of law, government, etc?

Kerry or Gore might not have been GREAT presidents, but at least their party defends the middle class. The GOP purposely fucked the American Middle Class.

And they lied to you every step of the way. The scared you with terrorism and for 30 years told you that liberals were bad and that their policies were right.

Are you still buying that?

If not, are you ever going to buy that again?

And the GOP did it all on purpose. They represent the top 10%. Who's getting bailed out? The top 10%. Wake the fuck up!!!

 

[Sinatra]

Republicans chose Dumbya four times. Every chance they had to choose between him, and another republican or candiate, they chose bush. Two national GOP campaigns, and two national elections.

If bush is a democrat, why did democrats not vote for him, and republicans selected him not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but four times?

Seeming lack of viable alternatives.

Then the choice was between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry.

As frustrating as Bush often was - Gore and Kerry....oh God.

Do you still not realize just how much damage Bush did to America, the middle class, our reputation, the treasury, the constitution, the rule of law, government, etc?

Kerry or Gore might not have been GREAT presidents, but at least their party defends the middle class. The GOP purposely fucked the American Middle Class.

And they lied to you every step of the way. The scared you with terrorism and for 30 years told you that liberals were bad and that their policies were right.

Are you still buying that?

If not, are you ever going to buy that again?

And the GOP did it all on purpose. They represent the top 10%. Who's getting bailed out? The top 10%. Wake the fuck up!!!

It never ceases to amaze at how many Dims continue to buy into the long-propogated myth that the Democrat Party is the one looking out for the "middle class".

The politics of race. The politics of class warfare.

So many are so willing to play by those rules...

 

[sealybobo]

Seeming lack of viable alternatives.

Then the choice was between Bush and Gore or Bush and Kerry.

As frustrating as Bush often was - Gore and Kerry....oh God.

Do you still not realize just how much damage Bush did to America, the middle class, our reputation, the treasury, the constitution, the rule of law, government, etc?

Kerry or Gore might not have been GREAT presidents, but at least their party defends the middle class. The GOP purposely fucked the American Middle Class.

And they lied to you every step of the way. The scared you with terrorism and for 30 years told you that liberals were bad and that their policies were right.

Are you still buying that?

If not, are you ever going to buy that again?

And the GOP did it all on purpose. They represent the top 10%. Who's getting bailed out? The top 10%. Wake the fuck up!!!

It never ceases to amaze at how many Dims continue to buy into the long-propogated myth that the Democrat Party is the one looking out for the "middle class".

The politics of race. The politics of class warfare.

So many are so willing to play by those rules...

The GOP prays on people like you. Or maybe you are actually a millionaire that has nothing better to do than come here and pretend to be an average joe (the plumber).

It is all about $. They GOP want people to think it is about race, sex, gays, guns, god, stem cell, pot, and every other wedge issue.

But the reality is, it is all about $.

So are you saying that after years and years of fucking watching, me and all the unions that always endorse the Dems are wrong? Please explain how in fact YOU GUYS are the ones who are better for the middle class.

After the last 8 years? Maybe you could have claimed that in 2003, but I think GOPanomics started kicking in just about in 2004 and that's when everything started falling apart. It was already falling apart, but the GOP accellerated the process.

It's really a long story, but in short, the GOP wanted to prove Government doesn't work so they could outsource everything. And bankrupt the treasury so it would be easier to sell us on ending a lot of social programs.

You can't deny it. That is unless you don't even know what's going on. That's possible too.

 

[sealybobo]

We know it was GOP policy to send jobs overseas. Yes Clinton signed NAFTA, but the GOP came up with NAFTA.

I hear you GOP'ers all the time advocating that a company should be able to fire you for whatever reason at any time, no matter what. That's certainly anti labor.

Who tries to fight minimum wage increases?

Which party pushed the unfair Bush tax breaks that are 99% for the top 1%?

It is a joke for the GOP to say they are better for the middle class.

Hell, the GOP can't even say they are the right party for millionaires anymore. They got fucked too. Only Billionaires should vote GOP.

 

[Sinatra]

We know it was GOP policy to send jobs overseas. Yes Clinton signed NAFTA, but the GOP came up with NAFTA.

I hear you GOP'ers all the time advocating that a company should be able to fire you for whatever reason at any time, no matter what. That's certainly anti labor.

Who tries to fight minimum wage increases?

Which party pushed the unfair Bush tax breaks that are 99% for the top 1%?

It is a joke for the GOP to say they are better for the middle class.

Hell, the GOP can't even say they are the right party for millionaires anymore. They got fucked too. Only Billionaires should vote GOP.

So many have so little grasp of facts in here.

Over-emotionalized antics do not a good discussion make.

As to organized labor - it is BIG BUSINESS. Among the biggest business entities today and has been for years.

And what has the labor union done but help decimate the once-great American auto industry?

There was a time when organized labor was a viable means for protecting the working class of this nation. That time passed many years ago - now it is a means of controlling the working class of this nation to support the big business of the union - a multi-billion dollar entity that enjoys all the trappings of the most plush and spoiled Wall Street fat cat.

You would do well to know the reality of the very institutions you so readily defend.

 

[GHook93]

1. This is just projection. We accuse you of doing this all the time. Thanks for proving you do it.

At least you give me credit for something. In fact I am a strong proponent of the Fair Tax. We can't compete with China, Mexico, Indonesia on things like wages, pollution controll, worker protection etc, we need to compete on technology, educated work force and most importantly taxation. Lower taxation on corporations and small business helps the middle class, which I fall into.

2. Maybe the tax and spending that occurs is the reality of things? You don't like what your taxes are going towards because you are a rigthy and Obama is a lefty. But you don't complain when it's Defense spending waste. Think about that.

Wrong its the reality NOW, because we let it get that way. Might be no way to reverse it, but that still shouldn't stop us from bitching about it.

3. All the bleeding heart liberals in the country aren't keeping illegals here. That would be the people paying them to stay. If they weren't getting paid, they'd leave tomorrow. So who owns these small business' that employ illegals? That would be a GOP issue. The bleeding hearts aren't funding the illegals. Another thing you should think about. You are brainwashed and gullable.

I addressed that the R's are just as responsible. but right now the rhetoric of the right and the rhetoric since the Reagan so called revolution was against supporting illegal immigration and the open border policy!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...der-security-wont-be-fixed-any-time-soon.html

4. Preemptive war? Do you know what PNAC is? The GOP was planning Iraq since the 90's. They even blame Clinton for not doing it, although they would have blamed him for the quagmire if he did. The GOP even pre planned, knowing ahead of time they might need to steal a few states, stole Florida in 2000 and then Ohio in 2004. Who knows what other states didn't even really vote for Bush yet went to him.

Not that I want to go into conspiracy theories, but that is exactly my point. The Bush years were marked with a Democratic like preemptive war strategy. Aka all the wars previous, except Desert Storm, that I mentioned!

5. Who do you want to pay for all of the GOP's spending from 2000-2006? You approved of the Iraq war, now you must pay for it. So how do you dare clammour for tax breaks? Bitch, it's time to pay your credit card bills!

The Iraq War was a mistake. Who created the deficit, undoubtable the Bush Democratic like spending policies (or rather not keeping the Republican Congress in check!)

6. Bush ignored America. Time for a facelift. All the social programs he ignored need attention. FDR got 30 years of good economy and built a strong middle class with a similar economic stimulous package. Are you rich? I doubt it. Anyone who is GOP is either really rich or stupid. Which are you?

No argument here, he sucked! The wife and I used to gross close to the $150K mark, with sales down a bunch its dropped to, well let's just say well under that!

7. Your party lost. Bush barely won and ran with his agenda. Obama slaughtered McCain, so a new sheriff is in town. The American people voted you out and the Dems in. The Dems are going to get their way. I call you the Grand Obstructionist Party.

Its not my party! And your point is? The first election I could vote in was 1996, I was too much of a storer back than to vote. In 2000? I was still getting drunk and laid in college. In 2004, I voted for Kerry! 2008 yep I voted McCain after being strongly in the Mitt Romney camp!

8. You are funny.

I do stand up on the weekends!

 

[editec]

If one still believes that the Demcorats and Republicans really stand for some political philosophy, then one is a damned fool.

If this economic meltdown hasn't alerted you to the fact that the pardigm of left and right liberal conservative is entirely artifical, I cannot imagine what will.

Of course this is a position which results form BOTH PARTIES BEING INFECTED BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT...

Only this imbecile wants to ignore that FACT and declare that the problems to which she speaks ARE A RESULT OF LEFT-THINK... but that is what moderates do... which is why they're to be ridiculed, belittled and summarily REJECTED.

The embolded is where you and continue to part company, PU.

What you describe as ideoogical leftism has nothing whatever to do with socialism.

What you essantially do is describe all government spending as leftist, which is of course, completely absurd.

Governments use the resources from their societies.

Governments ranging from absolute monarchies to Stalinist tyrannies spent resources -- sometimes wisely, sometimes foolishly -- but they will take some part of the society's resources to do whatever it is they think they must do with it, that's for damned sure.

Gerogie Bush II is no more a socialist than he is a fascist.

Obama is no more a marxist than he is a monarchist.

But you seem to be so foolishing enamored with labeling things that you don't like as socialism, that you seem to be missing the reality of the governments which have been in power your whole life.

I don't actually have a good name for what they are except that they are mixed economic system, wheresomething vaguely resembling capitalism interacts with something vaguely resembling a representational government.

What we have economically is neither capitalist, no socialist, What we have polticially is not tryanny, neither is it truly a respresentational government, either.

What American and European nations have in place aren't beholden to any of the 19th century descriptions of economic/political systems like socialism, communist, fabianism and so forth.

Now if you were a lasisse faire anarchist, I might understand why you objected to the very existence of government.

You complaints about socialism might have credibility with me that they don't currently have.

But since you have told us that you believe in our constitutional government, then really dude, all you're doing is complaining about the parts of the government that you object to personally as socialism, and ascribing anything you like as the constitutional government that you think we should have.

If you truly believe in laisse faire capitalism, then you really believe in the unicorn of economics.

Basically you believe in something that cannot exist because in order for CAPITALism to thrive somebody with a gun (or the threat of a gun) has to force us to take the LEGAL SPECIE for things of intinsic value.

Capitalism without FORCE OF LAW just isn't possible.

No more that socialism will spring forth from the pure hearts of mankind like the freakin' idot commies thought.

And ordered society requires power, and power demands its due.

We can argure the degree to which we thing that we want order, and we can debate how much we think that power needs to maintain order, but that had damned little to do with socialism or for that matter lasisse faire capitalism is this society.

 

[sealybobo]

1. This is just projection. We accuse you of doing this all the time. Thanks for proving you do it.

At least you give me credit for something. In fact I am a strong proponent of the Fair Tax. We can't compete with China, Mexico, Indonesia on things like wages, pollution controll, worker protection etc, we need to compete on technology, educated work force and most importantly taxation. Lower taxation on corporations and small business helps the middle class, which I fall into.

2. Maybe the tax and spending that occurs is the reality of things? You don't like what your taxes are going towards because you are a rigthy and Obama is a lefty. But you don't complain when it's Defense spending waste. Think about that.

Wrong its the reality NOW, because we let it get that way. Might be no way to reverse it, but that still shouldn't stop us from bitching about it.


I addressed that the R's are just as responsible. but right now the rhetoric of the right and the rhetoric since the Reagan so called revolution was against supporting illegal immigration and the open border policy!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...der-security-wont-be-fixed-any-time-soon.html

Educated work force? Why bother? We're getting fucked too. They're giving our jobs to India, China and Europe too. Plus if we don't manufacuture anything, why do we need to get smart? We all have service jobs now. We don't manufacture anymore? Do you know what happens to superpowers that outsource all their manufacturing? They go from creditor nations to debtor nations, which we have already done.

It isn't just Bush. It's the GOP's policies. They gave him what he wanted and he didn't veto one bill between 2000-2006. That says a lot.

Trickle down does not work. It has never worked.

They have already bankrupted the treasury and shifted the tax burden on you because corporations now get all the tax breaks. Suckers! Corporations should be paying the taxes, not us. And if they won't, leave. But don't think you will ship your shit back here.

You think they need more tax breaks? OMG! Forget Bush's tax breaks. They need to roll back the REAGAN tax breaks.

ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

PS. Stop listening to the rights rhetoric. You only need to view their actions to realize they are full of shit. So when they fuck up, and they always do, they just say, "sorry, we acted like democrats". So even when they lose they want to win. Fuck that. Stop being naive.

 

[Agnapostate]

There is a lot of truth in that. Now we have moved even further to the left.

BS... Every recent repub president has been trash at being fiscally responsible.

Dems on the other hands ran a balanced budget.

But keep pretending ....

There's little basis for such claims. Clinton's "third way" doctrine obviously included expansion of trade liberalization, which had the effect of displacing multitudes of Mexican workers and peasant farmers.

 

[GHook93]

There is a lot of truth in that. Now we have moved even further to the left.

BS... Every recent repub president has been trash at being fiscally responsible.

Dems on the other hands ran a balanced budget.

But keep pretending ....

There's little basis for such claims. Clinton's "third way" doctrine obviously included expansion of trade liberalization, which had the effect of displacing multitudes of Mexican workers and peasant farmers.

Hence NAFTA was signed into law under the Clinton Adm!

 

[Agnapostate]

Hence NAFTA was signed into law under the Clinton Adm!

And NAFTA, as a form of trade liberalization, consequently had the effect of imposing deleterious consequences on the Mexican lower class, and was also responsible for the patterns of mass migration over the Southern border.

Ultimately, there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans on fiscal matters. Both are mixed-market capitalists with long discredited strategies intended to alleviate social and economic ills. To move past that scheme, we need to abandon the illusion that the greatest economic divisions that exist are between Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman, and incorporate more radical economic policies.

 

[Paulie]

Republicans chose Dumbya four times. Every chance they had to choose between him, and another republican or candiate, they chose bush. Two national GOP campaigns, and two national elections.

If bush is a democrat, why did democrats not vote for him, and republicans selected him not just once, not just twice, not just three times, but four times?

Bush ran unopposed by his party in the '04 primaries. Republicans had no other choice there.

 

[DiamondDave]

And I would vote for him over Kerry again... even knowing all the things that he did that I disagreed with

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is a lot of truth in that. Now we have moved even further to the left.

BS... Every recent repub president has been trash at being fiscally responsible.

Dems on the other hands ran a balanced budget.

But keep pretending ....

What Leftists were those? Let's see... the last Conservative Democrat to serve as President was JFK... Who SLASHED the top marginal tax rates...

He was followed by LBJ who INITIATED most of "THE GREAT SOCIETY" which is responsible, in large measure, for the chronic deficits it's SOCIAL SPENDING MANDATES produced THEN and every since SINCE.

After LBJ, the next DEMOCRAT was Jimma Cawta... who implemented left-think as fiscal policy and as was predicted at the time, those policies resulted in massive (for their day) deficits, runaway inflation and double digit prime interest rates...


The next Democrat to find executive power in the US Federal government was D'er Schlickmeister, He'r Clinton... Who was so effective in TRYING to implement left-think as Federal policy that he (along with Speaker Gingrich's means to nationalize the '94 Congressional campaign) managed to reside over the landslide victory, seating a CONSERVATIVE Republican Congress... A Congress which produced the closest thing to a Balanced Budget since IKE.

Clinton had no choice but to co-op the Republican 'fiscal responsibility' POLICY, because Clinton, like all leftists came to POWER ON THAT MESSAGE. As did President Hussein... and just as Clinton went to work implementing irresponsible policy in the first year of his term, President Hussein has departed from ANY SENSE of fiscal responsibility and is now touting the most eggregiously irresponsible spending policy IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIES... We're talking policy SO IRRESPONSIBLE that it could very well bankrupt the whole of the US economy.

But this is what happens when one tolerates subversives in positions of power... they tends toward SUBVERSION.

As usual you're opinion amounts to little more than hysteria; its' a baseless assertion which rests on nothing beyond irrational emotion...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And I would vote for him (GW Bush) over Kerry again... even knowing all the things that he did that I disagreed with

I've voted for GW 4 four times... twice as governor of Texas and Twice in the general election for President... I've never voted for him in the primary... Preferring to vote for a conservative, except for the last time, when I voted for Gulliani... and that vote was predicated on a reward for a guy that handled 9-11 like a true champion and has NEVER ONCE wavered on what needs to be done in response to 9-11...

And as I've pointed out many time, GW Bush is a Progressive, with conservative tendencies... meaning he's a national socialist, meaning he's a fascist; which is not to say he's a NAZI... just that he erroneously buys into socialist principles; thus the redundent rubric of "Compassionate Conservatism."

But in every general election wherein GW Bush was on the ticket, the ONLY alternative to him was a SOCIALIST... and given the choice, the national socialist is VASTLY preferable
to the socialist; and this is based upon little more than the Fascist at LEAST being loyal to his own nation over those who would bring war against her...

I'd vote for GW Bush over these idiots until the end of time, where the choice was liited to GW of a socialist.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hence NAFTA was signed into law under the Clinton Adm!

And NAFTA, as a form of trade liberalization, consequently had the effect of imposing deleterious consequences on the Mexican lower class, and was also responsible for the patterns of mass migration over the Southern border.

Ultimately, there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans on fiscal matters. Both are mixed-market capitalists with long discredited strategies intended to alleviate social and economic ills. To move past that scheme, we need to abandon the illusion that the greatest economic divisions that exist are between Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman, and incorporate more radical economic policies.

Sweet Mother...



Bravo!

Now as the applause subsides... let me just add that such radical policy should include a return to economic freedom; freedom without regulatory mandates of minimum wages, FICA and social entitlements which undercuts PRODUCTIVITY...