I Have A Question For Republicans

[80zephyr]

In which countries do liberal policies work? I would say that the majority of the countries on earth have went the way of "liberal policy". And every one is now suffering from debt. We have the PIIGS(Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) Japan(which is bankrupt yet nobody will "pull the plug') because of what it will do to the world economy, etc...

Mark

The single most dangerous conservative economic thought is that the market, no matter how diverse, threatened, or open to monopoly can correct itself. Without regulation markets become free for all brawls. Every single time producers will try to tie up their sector to manipulate it for their personal aggrandizement then exploit it like they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002. Donald Trump himself said he was drooling over the 2008 economic crisis looking at with a view to a kill not about the harm it was doing the nation.

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

Glass Steagal kept things running pretty smoothly for 70 years, I fail to see how it would be hard to reconstruct something similar.

We assume it did. Just because nothing happened while it was in force might be a coincidence.

Mark

 

[nat4900]

No law passed is set in stone. The next president can undo anything done by the one before him. Since he has that power, THOSE EXPENSES become his legacy.

The above would describe the functions of an emperor.....In this country, what a president can do is revoke executive orders enacted by a predecessor...that's it.....

 

[80zephyr]

Hahahhahaha, if they wrote the numbers from demands then why aren't the numbers better under every president? Ole conspiracy angle huh?

Congress sets the parameters of EVERY CBO report. Its why the CBO stated that Obamacare would be fully funded because Congress required them to use "doc fix" as part of the calculations while understanding that "doc fix" would never be passed into law.

Mark

You are 100% CORRECT. What many do not understand is that the CBO is like a giant calculator without a brain. Even if they KNOW that income will go down if there is a massive tax increase in taxes they CANNOT include that in their calculations unless told to do so by the agency requesting the analysis.

Yep. There are CBO reports on the same subject that directly contradict each other based on the parameters of the data Congress requires them to look at.

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

That is the biggest crock of crap ever and you know it. We don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. Revenues to the federal government the past few years have hit $4 trillion dollars. Only a measly $600 billion of that goes to defense. Over $1 trillion goes to unconstitutional social nonsense.

Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history. And Democrats desperately want to pretend like they failed. Not only that - but they want to talk about "debt" under Reagan. The only reason there was deficit spending under Reagan was due to the fact that he had to rebuild the entire U.S. military which had been decimated by immature idealist Jimmy Carter.

The same thing awaits the next U.S. President after immature idealist Obama decimated our military as well. It's a vicious cycle of conservatives trying to clean up the mess created by Dmeocrats.

I try not to demean anyone when they engage me in a conversation even if it is spirited one, but your statement that "Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history." are delusional and to not reflect anything close to reality.

The Reagan era was one of the most prolific deficit spenders in our nations history. Government spending massively reached new highs and a lot of it was squandered on failed projects. He expanded government by creating new agencies and hiring 500,000 more government workers.He expanded Medicare, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A. He won his election in 1980 partly because of Jimmy Carter's running up the deficit by $79 billion, yet Reagan left office and his deficit was $155 billion higher. At least Jimmy Carter had the excuse of dealing with a recession, Ronald Reagan was running deficits during a time of economic growth.

Also, your claim that Obama has decimated the military is completely false, silly even. The claim that Jimmy Carter decimated the military in four years is foolish on its face. Conservative rags conveniently forget to include the money spent on veteran benefits and the fact that some military expenditures are now assumed by Homeland Security. You can independently verify that here No, the Military Has Not Withered Away Under Obama

I voted for Ronald Reagan and by the end of his first term I realized what a huge mistake I had made. He was possibly the most overrated president in American history.

And yet he is beloved by even hard core liberals. He took the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and by the time he left 8 years late, he had created one of the most prosperous economies in U.S. history. The fact that all you can do is talk about the national debt is proof that you can't dispute the success of his economic policies. Government spending has nothing to do with the free market economy. Why is it you point to "B" as "proof" of failure for "A"? It's completely nonsensical.

Honestly I don't know a single liberal who holds Ronald Reagan in any esteem. He raised the debt ceiling like 18 times, raised taxes 11 times, added 500,000 employees to the federal government, added the Department of Veterans Affairs, he signed an abortion bill, was for gun control, and was a champion of immigration. I think he was born in the wrong time, he would make a good Democrat today.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

The single most dangerous conservative economic thought is that the market, no matter how diverse, threatened, or open to monopoly can correct itself. Without regulation markets become free for all brawls. Every single time producers will try to tie up their sector to manipulate it for their personal aggrandizement then exploit it like they did in 1929, 1987, and 2002. Donald Trump himself said he was drooling over the 2008 economic crisis looking at with a view to a kill not about the harm it was doing the nation.

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

Glass Steagal kept things running pretty smoothly for 70 years, I fail to see how it would be hard to reconstruct something similar.

We assume it did. Just because nothing happened while it was in force might be a coincidence.

Mark

Oh please, you're in denial.

 

[80zephyr]

No law passed is set in stone. The next president can undo anything done by the one before him. Since he has that power, THOSE EXPENSES become his legacy.

The above would describe the functions of an emperor.....In this country, what a president can do is revoke executive orders enacted by a predecessor...that's it.....

Nope. According to our law, no future government can be held to an agreement of a previous administration. ANY law can be changed, at any time. If the current president either decides not to try to change a law(his choice) or tries to(and fails) that debt during his tenure becomes his.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I agree with you. The Democrats have had their way for at least 60 years, possibly more. However, as with any "free lunch" I feel that our time at the trough is almost over.

That is the problem with liberalism. As it snowballs, the debt escalates and crumbles the country. Its allure is that we can live well while saddling our children with our debt.

Until we can't anymore. Ask Greece what our future looks like.

Mark

We live in a country that won two World Wars and did it in 4 years, we once led the world in economic growth and blazed the way in science, technology and the arts. We had a president who challenged us to send a man to the moon in ten years and we shined doing it.

Now we are told by conservatives that we cannot live beyond our means to live as well as we did 47 years ago. In the process we became divided over this issue with conservatives demanding more money in their pockets and that wealth would trickle down and build a prosperous society. Well that never happened and if you bring it up every spin in the country won't allow it to be brought front and center where it belongs. Conservatives swore that their economic policy would work for everyone and now 35 years later we are still waiting for them to work.

Reagan's, debt, George H.W. Bush's debt, Bill Clinton's debt and George W. Bush's debt is what has fouled this country, yet conservatives want to lay it on the back of Obama. It must be painful to bury your head in the sand but there you are.

That is the biggest crock of crap ever and you know it. We don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. Revenues to the federal government the past few years have hit $4 trillion dollars. Only a measly $600 billion of that goes to defense. Over $1 trillion goes to unconstitutional social nonsense.

Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history. And Democrats desperately want to pretend like they failed. Not only that - but they want to talk about "debt" under Reagan. The only reason there was deficit spending under Reagan was due to the fact that he had to rebuild the entire U.S. military which had been decimated by immature idealist Jimmy Carter.

The same thing awaits the next U.S. President after immature idealist Obama decimated our military as well. It's a vicious cycle of conservatives trying to clean up the mess created by Dmeocrats.

I try not to demean anyone when they engage me in a conversation even if it is spirited one, but your statement that "Reagan's economic policies were the most successful in world history." are delusional and to not reflect anything close to reality.

The Reagan era was one of the most prolific deficit spenders in our nations history. Government spending massively reached new highs and a lot of it was squandered on failed projects. He expanded government by creating new agencies and hiring 500,000 more government workers.He expanded Medicare, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A. He won his election in 1980 partly because of Jimmy Carter's running up the deficit by $79 billion, yet Reagan left office and his deficit was $155 billion higher. At least Jimmy Carter had the excuse of dealing with a recession, Ronald Reagan was running deficits during a time of economic growth.

Also, your claim that Obama has decimated the military is completely false, silly even. The claim that Jimmy Carter decimated the military in four years is foolish on its face. Conservative rags conveniently forget to include the money spent on veteran benefits and the fact that some military expenditures are now assumed by Homeland Security. You can independently verify that here No, the Military Has Not Withered Away Under Obama

I voted for Ronald Reagan and by the end of his first term I realized what a huge mistake I had made. He was possibly the most overrated president in American history.

And yet he is beloved by even hard core liberals. He took the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and by the time he left 8 years late, he had created one of the most prosperous economies in U.S. history. The fact that all you can do is talk about the national debt is proof that you can't dispute the success of his economic policies. Government spending has nothing to do with the free market economy. Why is it you point to "B" as "proof" of failure for "A"? It's completely nonsensical.

Honestly I don't know a single liberal who holds Ronald Reagan in any esteem. He raised the debt ceiling like 18 times, raised taxes 11 times, added 500,000 employees to the federal government, added the Department of Veterans Affairs, he signed an abortion bill, was for gun control, and was a champion of immigration. I think he was born in the wrong time, he would make a good Democrat today.

And JFK would make a good Republican.

Mark

 

[P@triot]

What is the one branch of medicine where improvements are being made and costs are going down? Laser eye surgery. Since laser surgery is generally not covered by insurance, competition drives prices down while improving the product. Mark

Bingo! Because government subsidization causes prices to skyrocket. A simple, indisputable reality...

 

[80zephyr]

I have a different theory. As government grows, it is imperative or business to infiltrate it to protect itself. Business wasn't to concerned with government until government became so large as to threaten business, then they became involved.

Now, business uses government to choose winners and losers, and protect themselves by writing laws to squash competition.

It is also my belief that economies suffer ups and downs on a regular basis, and that the downs are the mechanism that keeps economies from overheating.

One last thing. Just who is it that you know that is so brilliant that they should be the ones to regulate our economy? God already has a job.

Mark
Mark

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

Glass Steagal kept things running pretty smoothly for 70 years, I fail to see how it would be hard to reconstruct something similar.

We assume it did. Just because nothing happened while it was in force might be a coincidence.

Mark

Oh please, you're in denial.

If you google "would glass steagal have saved us from the recession?", you get numerous arguments for and against.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

What is the one branch of medicine where improvements are being made and costs are going down? Laser eye surgery. Since laser surgery is generally not covered by insurance, competition drives prices down while improving the product. Mark

Bingo! Because government subsidization causes prices to skyrocket. A simple, indisputable reality...

Its not only government. If you get into a fender bender and take your car to a body shop, before they give you a quote they ask you whether you have insurance or not. You see, they charge insurance companies more, although they would never admit it.

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I hope we have learned something from 1929, 1987, 2002, 2008, it is those lessons we should take to heart. God isn't needed in our economic stability, it is god given common sense.

The market is too complex for anyone to control. They are "throwing darts" which is as bad as the problems they try to solve.

Mark

Glass Steagal kept things running pretty smoothly for 70 years, I fail to see how it would be hard to reconstruct something similar.

We assume it did. Just because nothing happened while it was in force might be a coincidence.

Mark

Oh please, you're in denial.

If you google "would glass steagal have saved us from the recession?", you get numerous arguments for and against.

Mark

Yes and there is a clear argument for and against. I think separating commercial banking from Investment banking would be helpful lord knows we never need to see another Enron or Worldcom.

 

[80zephyr]

Yeah we should have let the free market take over so there would be no US automakers left. Too bad thats how it goes.

You really believe that someone wouldn't rush in to fill the breech? Seriously?

Mark

 

[Markle]

Who said anything about a "nose job"? Your own link clearly states that it will not cover anything outside of Canda unless it is an absolute medical necessity (i.e. it's not offered in Canada). Sorry brother - it's there for everyone to see and it proves you had no clue what you were talking about and that I was right.

I CANNOT overcome either your stupidity or ignorance or delusion.......Now you want to "debate" what is an "absolute medical necessity...."

Look in your ignorance YOU stated that Canada does NOT pay her citizens for health care in the U.S.....The link proves YOU WRONG....Live with it, Poodle.

I have a question. If a Canadian can come to the US because his wait time in Canada is too long for an "absolute medical necessity", where will we Americans go when we adapt the Canadian system?

To Mexico?

Mark

Some may laugh but that is a very legitimate question.

Canada does not have enough facilities to handle women with difficult or problem pregnancies. Those women are flown, at Canada's expense, to facilities in the United States which are equipped for such issues. The relatives or friends of that woman are NOT allowed to come if they do not have a Visa.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled years ago that the extraordinarily long waiting lists in Canada were unconstitutional. That allowed for physicians to open private clinics where they charge what the market will bear. No insurance. So, Canada too has health care for everyone...and then those that can afford the best.

 

[P@triot]

Honestly I don't know a single liberal who holds Ronald Reagan in any esteem... I think he was born in the wrong time, he would make a good Democrat today.

Vintage....absolutely vintage.....liberal response. The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.

He starts by saying he's never heard of a liberal that holds Reagan in high esteem. He proceeds to list what he believes are policies by Reagan that were liberal, and finishes by saying Reagan was essentially a Democrat.

Then....uh....why wouldnt he be beloved by liberals?!?

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Honestly I don't know a single liberal who holds Ronald Reagan in any esteem... I think he was born in the wrong time, he would make a good Democrat today.

Vintage....absolutely vintage.....liberal response. The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.

He starts by saying he's never heard of a liberal that holds Reagan in high esteem. He proceeds to list what he believes are policies by Reagan that were liberal, and finishes by saying Reagan was essentially a Democrat.

Then....uh....why wouldnt he be beloved by liberals?!?

Simple, because when he was president he was the antipathy of liberal, he was widely hated and his presidency is a good example of just how far right the Republican Party has traveled since then.

 

[80zephyr]

Everything is traded in US dollars...until it isn't. The "value" of money is in the eye of the beholder. Too much debt will cause those to rely on stability to look elsewhere. Several credit rating agencies around the world have downgraded their credit ratings of the US dollar already.

I suspect that every great power on earth figured it "wouldn't happen to them"...until it did.

Mark

Of course they did, and eventually they all failed. It's a fact about fiat currency, it always ends bad, and virtually all major countries and most of Europe deal in Fiat currency now. Good luck guessing when it will all come crashing down.

You were asking "what is wrong with having debt"? Have we just answered that question?

Mark

We have confirmed what I already thought, that is, it doesn't matter until it does matter, and nobody knows when that will happen.

I agree. But what we both should b able to agree on, is that the mounting debt makes it more likely that that day will happen.

Mark

Yep, it will happen, but folks have been predicting it for decades, and so far nobody has been right.

During our last depression, the government had the resources to help the people. If the next depression is caused by government insolvency, do you have any idea what will happen to the American people?

Do you really want to take that chance?

We have had 13 major recessions/depressions since our nation began, so predicting for decades is no big deal.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Typical libtard nonsense. Ohio's cost of living is considerably lower than California's - so their "take home wage" doesn't need to be inflated. A 1,200 sq ft home doesn't cost $780,000 like it does in California. In Ohio, you build a 4,000 sq ft home for $400,000. You're trying to compare apples to wrenches because the facts prove that the Dumbocrat ideology is a failed ideology.

Furthermore, the American people to elect these conservatives to raise wages. They elected them to prevent their states from going bankrupt because the tax and spend and spend and spend Dumbocrats had spent states into collapse just like the Dumbocrats have done to the federal government with their $19 trillion debt. This is why a hard-core liberal state like Wisconsin finally accepted the fact that liberalism is a failed ideology and turned their state over to conservatives. Scott Walker built a $1 billion per year surplus. Their tax income so greatly exceeded their expenses that Walker cut both income tax and property tax. So the states liabilities are not only met in full, but the people have a lot more money in their pockets. It's they typical win-win of conservative policy:

Despite $1 billion surplus, group says Scott Walker raising state deficit while borrowing is at record high

You fail to recognize that $19 now $20 trillion debt is for interest and debt service on George Bush's tax cuts, Iraq War, and Medicare Part D all not paid for.

Obama care isn't "paid for" either. Matter of fact, I can't think of a single government program enacted in the past 70+ years that has been fully funded.

Whats your point?

Mark

My point is that we are in the debt position we are in because of Republican policy. It was Alan Greenspan who convinced George Bush to create debt via tax cuts, the Iraq War and Medicare Part D. The Federal Reserve was deathly afraid they would lose control over tax policy once we eliminated debt in this country.

Policies instituted before Bush was president started us on our debt creation. EVERY president adds his costs to our budget as well. If you fault Bush for these things, do you also hold Obama accountable for signing Obamacare into law when we all know it will add to our debt?

Mark

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?[/QUOTE]

Not gonna happen.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Explain just how they "hid" the war debt? Does the government have a slush fund somewhere that the people don't know about?

It is estimated that the war ON Iraq will eventually be gauged at 3.7 TRILLION......

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation, By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle


You're welcome......

Wherever the money came from, was it added to our debt?

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Honestly I don't know a single liberal who holds Ronald Reagan in any esteem... I think he was born in the wrong time, he would make a good Democrat today.

Vintage....absolutely vintage.....liberal response. The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.

He starts by saying he's never heard of a liberal that holds Reagan in high esteem. He proceeds to list what he believes are policies by Reagan that were liberal, and finishes by saying Reagan was essentially a Democrat.

Then....uh....why wouldnt he be beloved by liberals?!?

Simple, because when he was president he was the antipathy of liberal, he was widely hated and his presidency is a good example of just how far right the Republican Party has traveled since then.

Explain just how they "hid" the war debt? Does the government have a slush fund somewhere that the people don't know about?

It is estimated that the war ON Iraq will eventually be gauged at 3.7 TRILLION......

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation, By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle


You're welcome......

Wherever the money came from, was it added to our debt?

Mark

Well yes, we basically robbed peter to pay paul and oversight was kept out of the crosshairs the entire time.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

You fail to recognize that $19 now $20 trillion debt is for interest and debt service on George Bush's tax cuts, Iraq War, and Medicare Part D all not paid for.

Obama care isn't "paid for" either. Matter of fact, I can't think of a single government program enacted in the past 70+ years that has been fully funded.

Whats your point?

Mark

My point is that we are in the debt position we are in because of Republican policy. It was Alan Greenspan who convinced George Bush to create debt via tax cuts, the Iraq War and Medicare Part D. The Federal Reserve was deathly afraid they would lose control over tax policy once we eliminated debt in this country.

Policies instituted before Bush was president started us on our debt creation. EVERY president adds his costs to our budget as well. If you fault Bush for these things, do you also hold Obama accountable for signing Obamacare into law when we all know it will add to our debt?

Mark

The ACA is an expensive problem but the cost of not doing something was much greater. Most people can agree that a healthy nation is a productive nation and it is a heavy burden to just let people die without trying to do something to correct it. We can certainly move back to where we were pre ACA but where is the benefit in that? What do you say when we end up spending even more money than the ACA costs dealing with rising future healthcare costs?[/QUOTE]

Not gonna happen.

Mark

Let me ask you what is the alternative? Do we allow ourselves to become so callous we just let old and young sick people die?