Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

ROTFLMAO

This is PROOF ?

There is no context to any of this and you call this proof.

What was going on in 1993 ? Answer: Hillarycare.

The whole GOP proposed mess was a smoke-screen anyone with a reasonable set of eyes would know it.

The GOP takes the house/seante in 1994 and they pushed for health care....

Oh wait.......

The White house and both chambers for six years and what did you see......NOT A THING.

Besides being an asshole, you are lousy with your "proof.

Good grief.

Another Twilight Zone episode...the non sequitur time traveler.

Context?

The ACA was passed in 2009/10 by ONLY Democrats. That is the ONLY 'context' of the ACA.

In 2009/10, 'scholars' at the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank, were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Here that whooshing sound as most everything that is posted in your direction goes over your head ?

I guess Bfgrn has given up for the night. He must be tired of embarrassing himself with his pseudo liberalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

.....

To answer your question simply, it is not racism or exploitation because the wages paid for their labor is equivalent to their specific place on the labor evolution time line. Those who get the jobs emerge as the new "middle class" of their particular economic system. In India specially (of which I am personally aware) because of off shoring since the late 70s, there is a thriving middle class of over 300 million people, comparative to our entire population. That group would still be in relative poverty had we not exported jobs there. That group is growing because they are now consumers creating other jobs within their society. You have swallowed the left wing extremist rhetoric hook, line and sinker, and now you are trying to spread "the lie."

Second, our industry does not want them to remain poor, another left wing lie, because the new Indian middle class is starting to consume American goods and services and will continue to do so into the future, eventually becoming a huge new market for the west as we are now a huge market for them.

It is obvious that you are not only confused about offshore jobs, you are completely ignorant of the fact that studies show offshoring those jobs creates new jobs here in the US, so it is a win, win, situation.

The left wing extremists, (of which you are one) like to poo, poo, the whole concept of globalism either out of fear and ignorance or because of racism and bigotry, in the hopes of keeping the labor situation in the US in the 1960s strong unionist status. You could care less about other human lives in the world so long as your pet labor is an elite and over paid force.

Being a liberal is more than just being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education. It is about doing what it takes to see to it those goals are reached to the utmost possibility. Your concept of liberalism doesn't extend beyond the tip of your nose, if that far. Your "liberalism" is elitism, protecting your turf, narrowness of view; progress.....but only for those you consider "deserving" of your altruism.

This ignorance is partly caused by your never getting out of your "box" and trying to understand and empathize with the people in the rest of the world. You haven't been there, you haven't studied their sociology, and you don't really give a damn.

BTW, I did not defend Listening, I made my own points about that drunk, murdering, blob of fat you call "a great senator," a person I would walk out on if he came to spew his extremist filth in my home town. I don't wish him dead, I just wish he was reduced in power to what he really is, an enemy of humanity. You could care less what he is, so long as he is good for your left wing extremist power structure.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy
The irony has become so thick from you that I really don't know where to start.

Your post is unbridled right wing propaganda. It IS the words of a unintelligent parrot defending an aristocracy that has exploited cheap labor, no regulations, no environmental protections, no safe workplace policies and no regard for human life; the very CORE of conservatism. It is NOT the words of a liberal.

Being a liberal is ALL ABOUT being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education...FOR ALL.

Liberals have always fought for those rights not only for Americans, but for ALL human beings. That means that the worker in India, China and other countries have the basic human right to safe working conditions, fair wages and a safe environment to raise their families in.

Once those basic rights come to be in outsource countries, your beloved elites will pull up stakes and move on to exploit new markets to exploit.

It was made VERY clear by one of the icons of the corporate elites who now control this nation. Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions.

GE: Every Plant on a Barge

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Absolutely, but not an ELITE group, but all of labor.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

You seem to worship Grover Norquist. I don't, I worship fair labor relationships in all countries, not just in the US. Your stated opinions (and I hope you are just describing your opinions poorly) are counter what you say you believe. You seem to have no concern for the people of the world. It appears from what you say you want the workers of the world (the majority) to live in squalor, so long as our elite labor force in the US can prosper.

Pardon me Bgrn, but I can't live that selfishly. I can't condemn the labor of the rest of the world to second class lives. I believe in being uplifting for our world labor force, not in relegating the third world labor to slave conditions.

It is possible that our industry may make some profits in the practice of offshoring. That is not in and of itself evil. Because it is aiding the workers of the world to raise their standards of living and joining the 1st world of economic security, personal liberty, good safety standards and standards of living.

To reiterate JFK's comment:

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”​

Which means, we cannot force our solutions on others. They must have their own labor revolution, economic evolution, with better standards of living and safety. BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT JOBS, AND IF WE DENY THEM JOBS WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING THEM BACK. Yet in the process we still create from 1 to 1.7 new jobs in the US for every one we export.

You are so ate up with your left wing extremist rhetoric you don't realize it is you pushing for isolationism, for holding the people of the world back, at the expense of some imaginary elite labor force in the US.

I think your problem is, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TRUE LIBERALISM IS. True liberalism is wanting reasonable prosperity FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. You harbor some "we have to get ours in the US and to hell with the rest of the world." The more pity for you and your narrow minded elitism.

Talking about pseudo intellectualism, you are ate up with the dumb butt stick. Nationalism such as you espouse tends to be the mantra of the Right Wing.

You are trying to put lipstick on a pig. YOU are the one who is trying to paint corporate exploitation of other people in the world as somehow altruistic. Are you THAT naive, or just that stupid? YOU make excuses for exploitation by your beloved elites, the captains of industry. And it has been at the expense, not benefit, of fellow American workers you loathe. YOU are the one who supports Grover Norquist, a fierce defender of Reagan's union busting.

HERE is how your right wing neocon outsourcing has worked out for American workers.

 

[dnsmith35]

......

.....

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy
The irony has become so thick from you that I really don't know where to start.

Your post is unbridled right wing propaganda. It IS the words of a unintelligent parrot defending an aristocracy that has exploited cheap labor, no regulations, no environmental protections, no safe workplace policies and no regard for human life; the very CORE of conservatism. It is NOT the words of a liberal.

Being a liberal is ALL ABOUT being "for the people," "for the little guy," for equality and civil rights for all, for universal health care and good public education...FOR ALL.

Liberals have always fought for those rights not only for Americans, but for ALL human beings. That means that the worker in India, China and other countries have the basic human right to safe working conditions, fair wages and a safe environment to raise their families in.

Once those basic rights come to be in outsource countries, your beloved elites will pull up stakes and move on to exploit new markets to exploit.

It was made VERY clear by one of the icons of the corporate elites who now control this nation. Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions.

GE: Every Plant on a Barge

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

You seem to worship Grover Norquist. I don't, I worship fair labor relationships in all countries, not just in the US. Your stated opinions (and I hope you are just describing your opinions poorly) are counter what you say you believe. You seem to have no concern for the people of the world. It appears from what you say you want the workers of the world (the majority) to live in squalor, so long as our elite labor force in the US can prosper.

Pardon me Bgrn, but I can't live that selfishly. I can't condemn the labor of the rest of the world to second class lives. I believe in being uplifting for our world labor force, not in relegating the third world labor to slave conditions.

It is possible that our industry may make some profits in the practice of offshoring. That is not in and of itself evil. Because it is aiding the workers of the world to raise their standards of living and joining the 1st world of economic security, personal liberty, good safety standards and standards of living.

To reiterate JFK's comment:

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”​

Which means, we cannot force our solutions on others. They must have their own labor revolution, economic evolution, with better standards of living and safety. BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT JOBS, AND IF WE DENY THEM JOBS WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOLDING THEM BACK. Yet in the process we still create from 1 to 1.7 new jobs in the US for every one we export.

You are so ate up with your left wing extremist rhetoric you don't realize it is you pushing for isolationism, for holding the people of the world back, at the expense of some imaginary elite labor force in the US.

I think your problem is, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TRUE LIBERALISM IS. True liberalism is wanting reasonable prosperity FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. You harbor some "we have to get ours in the US and to hell with the rest of the world." The more pity for you and your narrow minded elitism.

Talking about pseudo intellectualism, you are ate up with the dumb butt stick. Nationalism such as you espouse tends to be the mantra of the Right Wing.

You are trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Correct! But you keep moving around so much I can't get the lipstick on you straight.

YOU are the one who is trying to paint corporate exploitation of other people in the world as somehow altruistic.

:roflol: You are smoking too much weed, and you are a pseudo liberal who doesn't care about the people in the rest of the world. You are a greedy little pig with smeared lipstick

Are you THAT naive, or just that stupid? YOU make excuses for exploitation by your beloved elites, the captains of industry.

I make no excuses for what is good for humanity, I leave that up to you.

And it has been at the expense, not benefit, of fellow American workers you loathe. YOU are the one who supports Grover Norquist, a fierce defender of Reagan's union busting.

:roflol: You have never seen me defend the union busting or Grover Norquist. You must be smoking bad weed, good stuff won't make you tell whooping stories like that.

HERE is how your right wing neocon outsourcing has worked out for American workers.

Good charts, but they certainly do not relate to anything I have said. I hope you realize that just looking at the chart would be embarrassing to Obama since the peak was 2009 and went down from there. You're on that bad weed again. But, if you want to understand the subject of off shoring instead of just showing the bad economics of the Bush period, here it is from the same source you used:
Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

So while I recognize we had downturns of prosperity in the period of 2000 to 2014 due mostly to Bush and his inept policies, the downturns were not caused by off shoring. If you would stop smoking bad weed, taking LSD or drinking to oblivion maybe you would recognize I am not for unregulated laissez-faire economics to fatten the pay checks of the "Captains of Industry."

 

[Listening]

Another Twilight Zone episode...the non sequitur time traveler.

Context?

The ACA was passed in 2009/10 by ONLY Democrats. That is the ONLY 'context' of the ACA.

In 2009/10, 'scholars' at the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank, were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Here that whooshing sound as most everything that is posted in your direction goes over your head ?

I guess Bfgrn has given up for the night. He must be tired of embarrassing himself with his pseudo liberalism.

Possibly....

or he called someone to commiserate since you are kicking his ass at every turn.

 

[dnsmith35]

Here that whooshing sound as most everything that is posted in your direction goes over your head ?

I guess Bfgrn has given up for the night. He must be tired of embarrassing himself with his pseudo liberalism.

Possibly....

or he called someone to commiserate since you are kicking his ass at every turn.

He is as ignorant as an ant turd and doesn't realize his attitude towards humanity is RW extremist.

I am a moderate Democrat and lean toward social liberalism with more moderate views of economics. His attitude reflects stupidity/disregard for economics, liberalism and humanity.

What he, and some other left wingers over look, is not the goals they SAY they espouse, but rather a reasonable means by which to attain them. In that process they diligently hold on to some old concepts which suggest liberalism, but in fact are a block to the realization of true liberalism. Some of those concepts were essential as our society was evolving, but now they have become passé and we have better means, with government regulation, to ensure those essential actions take place. Our economy has passed them up, and their old ideas throttle progression of a wider distribution of wealth to the more people. They say they want that, but they go about it in such a way as to reduce the effectiveness.

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess Bfgrn has given up for the night. He must be tired of embarrassing himself with his pseudo liberalism.

Possibly....

or he called someone to commiserate since you are kicking his ass at every turn.

He is as ignorant as an ant turd and doesn't realize his attitude towards humanity is RW extremist.

I am a moderate Democrat and lean toward social liberalism with more moderate views of economics. His attitude reflects stupidity/disregard for economics, liberalism and humanity.

You are either a liar, or obtuse. You claim to be a JFK liberal AND a worshiper of Ronald Reagan. Reagan and JFK are like oil and water. They have nothing in common in political, economic or social ideology...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Quote by dnsmith35:
I so whole heartedly agree with them.

Ronald Reagan is the very antithesis of that belief. To paraphrase Reagan:

'There are 14 or 15 million Americans whose interests Washington must protect. We must feed the elite enough oats, so some will pass through to the road for the sparrows, the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million sparrows'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions."
Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001

You claim you don't agree with Jack Welsh, but he is telling you in plain English what outsourcing is all about...


Educate yourself....

Offshoring ensures loss of good U.S. jobs

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

 

[dnsmith35]

Possibly....

or he called someone to commiserate since you are kicking his ass at every turn.

He is as ignorant as an ant turd and doesn't realize his attitude towards humanity is RW extremist.

I am a moderate Democrat and lean toward social liberalism with more moderate views of economics. His attitude reflects stupidity/disregard for economics, liberalism and humanity.

You are either a liar, or obtuse.

You aren't smart enough to call me a liar.

You claim to be a JFK liberal AND a worshiper of Ronald Reagan. Reagan and JFK are like oil and water. They have nothing in common in political, economic or social ideology...

You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Quote by dnsmith35:
I so whole heartedly agree with them.

I still agree with Truman and Kennedy.

Ronald Reagan is the very antithesis of that belief. To paraphrase Reagan:

'There are 14 or 15 million Americans whose interests Washington must protect. We must feed the elite enough oats, so some will pass through to the road for the sparrows, the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million sparrows'

When you spout bullshit like that it shows your ignorance.

"Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions."
Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001

You claim you don't agree with Jack Welsh, but he is telling you in plain English what outsourcing is all about...

If that is what you get out of Jack Welsh's comment you are incapable of reading and understanding English.

Educate yourself....

Offshoring ensures loss of good U.S. jobs

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke is obviously wrong. Studies prove as many jobs are created in the US as are lost from off shoring. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/ I have educated myself with information, not wise ass comments like you use but don't understand. You are not a true liberal. You are a doofus spouting clichés and old quotes you don't understand. You do harm to the progressive American party with your phony and pseudo liberalism with your left wing euphemisms. What you fail to recognize is, you are so extreme left wing you have almost come full circle to right wing stupidities. You want something to happen, but you haven't the faintest idea how to make it happen. Typical of you tongue wagers!

You claim to be for what JFK called for, but you are too stupid to know that he was not a left winger in his means to get there.

The definition of a liberal is one who wants all people to have their fair share of prosperity, equality and liberty. The definition of stupid is a person who calls himself liberal without the slightest idea of how best to achieve those goals; someone like you. You are a perfect example of why I say, "the democrat party has moved so far to the left it is unrecognizable."

 

[Bfgrn]

He is as ignorant as an ant turd and doesn't realize his attitude towards humanity is RW extremist.

I am a moderate Democrat and lean toward social liberalism with more moderate views of economics. His attitude reflects stupidity/disregard for economics, liberalism and humanity.

You are either a liar, or obtuse. You claim to be a JFK liberal AND a worshiper of Ronald Reagan. Reagan and JFK are like oil and water. They have nothing in common in political, economic or social ideology...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Quote by dnsmith35:
I so whole heartedly agree with them.

Ronald Reagan is the very antithesis of that belief. To paraphrase Reagan:

'There are 14 or 15 million Americans whose interests Washington must protect. We must feed the elite enough oats, so some will pass through to the road for the sparrows, the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million sparrows'



"Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions."
Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001

You claim you don't agree with Jack Welsh, but he is telling you in plain English what outsourcing is all about...

If that is what you get out of Jack Welsh's comment you are incapable of reading and understanding English.

Educate yourself....

Offshoring ensures loss of good U.S. jobs

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke is obviously wrong. Studies prove as many jobs are created in the US as are lost from off shoring. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says I have educated myself with information, not wise ass comments like you use but don't understand. You are not a true liberal. You are a doofus spouting clichés and old quotes you don't understand. You do harm to the progressive American party with your phony and pseudo liberalism with your left wing euphemisms. What you fail to recognize is, you are so extreme left wing you have almost come full circle to right wing stupidities. You want something to happen, but you haven't the faintest idea how to make it happen. Typical of you tongue wagers!

You claim to be for what JFK called for, but you are too stupid to know that he was not a left winger in his means to get there.

The definition of a liberal is one who wants all people to have their fair share of prosperity, equality and liberty. The definition of stupid is a person who calls himself liberal without the slightest idea of how best to achieve those goals; someone like you. You are a perfect example of why I say, "the democrat party has moved so far to the left it is unrecognizable."

Translation: You have NOTHING, so you resort to name calling and childishness.

BTW, your chopping up of posts really screws up this thread. Your own words are eliminated when I hit the quote button.

dnsmith35 said: "You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left."


You not only know NOTHING about John F. Kennedy, you know NOTHING about your hero Ronbo Reagan. Reagan was NOT a JFK liberal. Reagan endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Richard Nixon, NOT John F. Kennedy in 1960.

John F. Kennedy is the father of Medicare. In 1960, Medicare was part of Kennedy’s campaign platform. Just 10 days after he was inaugurated, he mentioned it in his first State of the Union, saying, “Measures to provide health care for the aged under Social Security, and to increase the supply of both facilities and personnel, must be undertaken this year.” Then just another 11 days after that, On Feb. 9, 1961, Kennedy delivered his “Special Message to the Congress on Health and Hospital Care.” The very first section of proposals was titled “Health Insurance for the Aged.” He recommended “enactment of a health insurance program under the Social Security system” that would provide inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing home services, hospital outpatient clinic diagnostic services and community visiting nurse services, and related home health services — in short, Medicare.

Ronald Reagan was the chief spokesperson against Medicare. Typically, he did not offer factual arguments, but wild, hyperbolic accusations instead. In a taped anti-Medicare message, “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” paid for in part by the AMA, Reagan warned that, “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism has been by way of medicine,” and closed by urging people to contact Congress with their opposition, warning that, “If you don’t do this, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in American when men were free.”

John F. Kennedy is the father of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In the early 1960s Reagan opposed certain civil rights legislation, saying that "if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

 

[dnsmith35]

You are either a liar, or obtuse. You claim to be a JFK liberal AND a worshiper of Ronald Reagan. Reagan and JFK are like oil and water. They have nothing in common in political, economic or social ideology...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Quote by dnsmith35:
I so whole heartedly agree with them.

Ronald Reagan is the very antithesis of that belief. To paraphrase Reagan:

'There are 14 or 15 million Americans whose interests Washington must protect. We must feed the elite enough oats, so some will pass through to the road for the sparrows, the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million sparrows'



"Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions."
Jack Welch, chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001

You claim you don't agree with Jack Welsh, but he is telling you in plain English what outsourcing is all about...


Educate yourself....

Offshoring ensures loss of good U.S. jobs

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke is obviously wrong. Studies prove as many jobs are created in the US as are lost from off shoring. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says I have educated myself with information, not wise ass comments like you use but don't understand. You are not a true liberal. You are a doofus spouting clichés and old quotes you don't understand. You do harm to the progressive American party with your phony and pseudo liberalism with your left wing euphemisms. What you fail to recognize is, you are so extreme left wing you have almost come full circle to right wing stupidities. You want something to happen, but you haven't the faintest idea how to make it happen. Typical of you tongue wagers!

You claim to be for what JFK called for, but you are too stupid to know that he was not a left winger in his means to get there.

The definition of a liberal is one who wants all people to have their fair share of prosperity, equality and liberty. The definition of stupid is a person who calls himself liberal without the slightest idea of how best to achieve those goals; someone like you. You are a perfect example of why I say, "the democrat party has moved so far to the left it is unrecognizable."

Translation: You have NOTHING, so you resort to name calling and childishness.

Actually, I have IT ALL. I was wondering if you would come back and make an ass of yourself. BTW, you started the insult throwing so blow it out your excremental orifice.

BTW, your chopping up of posts really screws up this thread. Your own words are eliminated when I hit the quote button.

I understand, it is hard for you to concentrate with a give and date discussion. Sorry Charlie, but your long drawn out diatribes quoting JFK et al are of little value to anyone.

dnsmith35 said: "You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left."

You not only know NOTHING about John F. Kennedy, you know NOTHING about your hero Ronbo Reagan. Reagan was NOT a JFK liberal. Reagan endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Richard Nixon, NOT John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Sure, and God didn't make little green apples! I may know "nothing" but it is still multitudes more than you. That was an interesting Wiki article you wrote and reposted.

According to Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan, Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people. For the time, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and,in December 1945 as was a strong follower of FDR. Though he remained a Democrat for a number of years and liked JFK personally, he believed the Democrat party was moving too rapidly to the left. He finally changed his party affiliation to Republican.​

BTW, when you use SALON.COM as a source, you have identified yourself as a left wing fanatic. It and you stretch the truth at will in the hopes gullible people believe your stories. I am not sure if you are just dishonest, ignorant or stupid, but you are not believable.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The only way pre-existing conditions coverage works is with huge premiums and out-of-pockets. It blows the whole actuarial model out of the water.

 

[dnsmith35]

The only way pre-existing conditions coverage works is with huge premiums and out-of-pockets. It blows the whole actuarial model out of the water.

Where do you live in NOLA? We lived Upton on Perrier and Jefferson Ave. Went to Loyola.

 

[Bfgrn]

Edmund Burke is obviously wrong. Studies prove as many jobs are created in the US as are lost from off shoring. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says I have educated myself with information, not wise ass comments like you use but don't understand. You are not a true liberal. You are a doofus spouting clichés and old quotes you don't understand. You do harm to the progressive American party with your phony and pseudo liberalism with your left wing euphemisms. What you fail to recognize is, you are so extreme left wing you have almost come full circle to right wing stupidities. You want something to happen, but you haven't the faintest idea how to make it happen. Typical of you tongue wagers!

You claim to be for what JFK called for, but you are too stupid to know that he was not a left winger in his means to get there.

The definition of a liberal is one who wants all people to have their fair share of prosperity, equality and liberty. The definition of stupid is a person who calls himself liberal without the slightest idea of how best to achieve those goals; someone like you. You are a perfect example of why I say, "the democrat party has moved so far to the left it is unrecognizable."

Translation: You have NOTHING, so you resort to name calling and childishness.

BTW, your chopping up of posts really screws up this thread. Your own words are eliminated when I hit the quote button.

I understand, it is hard for you to concentrate with a give and date discussion. Sorry Charlie, but your long drawn out diatribes quoting JFK et al are of little value to anyone.

dnsmith35 said: "You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left."

You not only know NOTHING about John F. Kennedy, you know NOTHING about your hero Ronbo Reagan. Reagan was NOT a JFK liberal. Reagan endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Richard Nixon, NOT John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Sure, and God didn't make little green apples! I may know "nothing" but it is still multitudes more than you. That was an interesting Wiki article you wrote and reposted.

According to Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan, Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people. For the time, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and,in December 1945 as was a strong follower of FDR. Though he remained a Democrat for a number of years and liked JFK personally, he believed the Democrat party was moving too rapidly to the left. He finally changed his party affiliation to Republican.​

BTW, when you use SALON.COM as a source, you have identified yourself as a left wing fanatic. It and you stretch the truth at will in the hopes gullible people believe your stories. I am not sure if you are just dishonest, ignorant or stupid, but you are not believable.

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com.

You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.
Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

Thank You Mr. President - 49 second video

Reagan and the press...

When President Reagan first took over the oval office, we would throw questions at President Reagan, and he would answer them.

Well, his three top aides were apoplectic. They didn’t know what was coming out of his mouth. They taught the president to say “this is not a press conference”, and they had him quite trained on that.

And one day we asked him what was happening, and he said to us: “I can’t answer that”. We said ‘why’?

“Because they won’t let me”, he pointed to Baker, Meese and Deaver standing behind, very grim.

“They won’t let me”…I said, ‘but you’re the President’…

 

[Listening]

Translation: You have NOTHING, so you resort to name calling and childishness.

BTW, your chopping up of posts really screws up this thread. Your own words are eliminated when I hit the quote button.

dnsmith35 said: "You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left."

You not only know NOTHING about John F. Kennedy, you know NOTHING about your hero Ronbo Reagan. Reagan was NOT a JFK liberal. Reagan endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Richard Nixon, NOT John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Sure, and God didn't make little green apples! I may know "nothing" but it is still multitudes more than you. That was an interesting Wiki article you wrote and reposted.

According to Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan, Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people. For the time, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and,in December 1945 as was a strong follower of FDR. Though he remained a Democrat for a number of years and liked JFK personally, he believed the Democrat party was moving too rapidly to the left. He finally changed his party affiliation to Republican.​

BTW, when you use SALON.COM as a source, you have identified yourself as a left wing fanatic. It and you stretch the truth at will in the hopes gullible people believe your stories. I am not sure if you are just dishonest, ignorant or stupid, but you are not believable.

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com.

You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.
Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

Thank You Mr. President - 49 second video

Reagan and the press...

When President Reagan first took over the oval office, we would throw questions at President Reagan, and he would answer them.

Well, his three top aides were apoplectic. They didn’t know what was coming out of his mouth. They taught the president to say “this is not a press conference”, and they had him quite trained on that.

And one day we asked him what was happening, and he said to us: “I can’t answer that”. We said ‘why’?

“Because they won’t let me”, he pointed to Baker, Meese and Deaver standing behind, very grim.

“They won’t let me”…I said, ‘but you’re the President’…

Yeah,

And I talked to him and asked how his golf game was and he told me he was shooting a handicap of 15.

 

[dnsmith35]

Translation: You have NOTHING, so you resort to name calling and childishness.

BTW, your chopping up of posts really screws up this thread. Your own words are eliminated when I hit the quote button.

dnsmith35 said: "You are so full of crap it is amazing. Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961, as was I. Reagan moved to the right and the democrat party moved to the left."

You not only know NOTHING about John F. Kennedy, you know NOTHING about your hero Ronbo Reagan. Reagan was NOT a JFK liberal. Reagan endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Richard Nixon, NOT John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Sure, and God didn't make little green apples! I may know "nothing" but it is still multitudes more than you. That was an interesting Wiki article you wrote and reposted.

According to Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan, Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people. For the time, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and,in December 1945 as was a strong follower of FDR. Though he remained a Democrat for a number of years and liked JFK personally, he believed the Democrat party was moving too rapidly to the left. He finally changed his party affiliation to Republican.​

BTW, when you use SALON.COM as a source, you have identified yourself as a left wing fanatic. It and you stretch the truth at will in the hopes gullible people believe your stories. I am not sure if you are just dishonest, ignorant or stupid, but you are not believable.

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com.

What is Townhall? What ever it is, it can't be as phony a source as Salon.

You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.

Nope! He supported a better candidate in Eisenhower, and I do believe he was wrong not to support Kennedy. But he did not change parties until later.

Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

Do tell! Not what the books say.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

I got to admit, you do know a lot about shit.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

You got the part about loathing Ted right. He was a drunkard and a murderer. JFK was no where near as left wing as Ted and only an idiot would say he was.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.

By the time he ran for president he was conservative. Puppet? Now I know you know a lot about Shit.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl.

So now you are giving comedians as a source? You have lost what little sense I thought you had.

I don't do video clips except without sound, and they weren't a bit funny as silent films.

BTW, you can pull up your pants now, I am checking out but when I come back I'll catch you with your pants down again. You know, I did say I was a liberal, NOT SOME STUPID LEFT WINGER LIKE YOU. You should have joined Sahl, you are getting funnier and funnier the more shit you shovel.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sure, and God didn't make little green apples! I may know "nothing" but it is still multitudes more than you. That was an interesting Wiki article you wrote and reposted.

According to Paul Kengor, author of God and Ronald Reagan, Reagan had a particularly strong faith in the goodness of people. For the time, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination. Reagan began his political career as a Democrat and,in December 1945 as was a strong follower of FDR. Though he remained a Democrat for a number of years and liked JFK personally, he believed the Democrat party was moving too rapidly to the left. He finally changed his party affiliation to Republican.​

BTW, when you use SALON.COM as a source, you have identified yourself as a left wing fanatic. It and you stretch the truth at will in the hopes gullible people believe your stories. I am not sure if you are just dishonest, ignorant or stupid, but you are not believable.

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com. You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.
Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.
"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl.

So now you are giving comedians as a source? You have lost what little sense I thought you had.

I don't do video clips except without sound, and they weren't a bit funny as silent films.

BTW, you can pull up your pants now, I am checking out but when I come back I'll catch you with your pants down again. You know, I did say I was a liberal, NOT SOME STUPID LEFT WINGER LIKE YOU. You should have joined Sahl, you are getting funnier and funnier the more shit you shovel.

You're so obtuse you don't even know what you posted...

Liberals claim conservatives are racist and bigoted. Yet it is the left wing fanatics who are the truly bigoted and racist people.

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 1

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 2

You are moving WAY beyond obtuse. You cite a book by Paul Kengor, and you don't know who Townhall.com is?

Townhall.com...the far right wing cesspool home of 'scholars' like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins and Paul Kengor.

Do you even know who Paul Kengor is? What next from this far right wing moron will you cite from? [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-George-W-Bush-Spiritual/dp/B000HWYUXE"]God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life[/ame]? Or maybe you can expand on Kengor's theory that Satan duped gay people into supporting Marxist Marriage Equality?

It doesn't get any farther right, or any more ignorant.

BTW, you don't have to "do video clips", I provided a transcript. It shows just how obtuse your beloved puppet Ronbo was.

 

[Listening]

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com. You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.
Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.
"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl.

I don't do video clips except without sound, and they weren't a bit funny as silent films.

BTW, you can pull up your pants now, I am checking out but when I come back I'll catch you with your pants down again. You know, I did say I was a liberal, NOT SOME STUPID LEFT WINGER LIKE YOU. You should have joined Sahl, you are getting funnier and funnier the more shit you shovel.

You're so obtuse you don't even know what you posted...

Liberals claim conservatives are racist and bigoted. Yet it is the left wing fanatics who are the truly bigoted and racist people.

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 1

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 2

You are moving WAY beyond obtuse. You cite a book by Paul Kengor, and you don't know who Townhall.com is?

Townhall.com...the far right wing cesspool home of 'scholars' like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins and Paul Kengor.

Do you even know who Paul Kengor is? What next from this far right wing moron will you cite from? [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-George-W-Bush-Spiritual/dp/B000HWYUXE"]God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life[/ame]? Or maybe you can expand on Kengor's theory that Satan duped gay people into supporting Marxist Marriage Equality?

It doesn't get any farther right, or any more ignorant.

BTW, you don't have to "do video clips", I provided a transcript. It shows just how obtuse your beloved puppet Ronbo was.

You are a classic example of "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".

Please pull out a Townhall article and we can examine it. So far, all you've done is quote lopsided articles that are written by the analogous whacko on the left.

Beyond being an asshole, you are a hypocrite.

Let's hope they cancel Social Security soon so you can move to Cuba with your buddy Franco and thus improve the I.Q. of the U.S.

 

[dnsmith35]

The Salon article is factual and has excellent embedded sources. Ironic coming from a so called liberal who quotes Townhall.com. You SAID Ronald Reagan was a JFK democrat in 1961...you are WRONG. Own up to it.
Reagan changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President.

You don't know shit about John F. Kennedy, and you don't know shit about Ronbo Reagan.

John F. Kennedy was just as liberal as his two brothers, who you loathe.

Ronald Reagan, the actor, was a lightweight who was the puppet of Baker, Meese and Deaver.
"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl.

I don't do video clips except without sound, and they weren't a bit funny as silent films.

BTW, you can pull up your pants now, I am checking out but when I come back I'll catch you with your pants down again. You know, I did say I was a liberal, NOT SOME STUPID LEFT WINGER LIKE YOU. You should have joined Sahl, you are getting funnier and funnier the more shit you shovel.

You're so obtuse you don't even know what you posted...

Liberals claim conservatives are racist and bigoted. Yet it is the left wing fanatics who are the truly bigoted and racist people.

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 1

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? - John Hawkins - Page 2

You are moving WAY beyond obtuse. You cite a book by Paul Kengor, and you don't know who Townhall.com is?

Townhall.com...the far right wing cesspool home of 'scholars' like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins and Paul Kengor.

Do you even know who Paul Kengor is? What next from this far right wing moron will you cite from? [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-George-W-Bush-Spiritual/dp/B000HWYUXE"]God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life[/ame]? Or maybe you can expand on Kengor's theory that Satan duped gay people into supporting Marxist Marriage Equality?

It doesn't get any farther right, or any more ignorant.

BTW, you don't have to "do video clips", I provided a transcript. It shows just how obtuse your beloved puppet Ronbo was.

Paul Kengor may be right wing, but his biographies were simply statements about people; I don't read them for philosophy. You throw out all those conservative names like they are evil people. They may have different political opinions but they are not evil, any more than are Jon Stewart, Paul (stupid) Krugman, Moulitsas, Galbraith, et al. All are biased swine, but there is truth in what they say whereas the lie is in their commentary. You have been brain washed so completely by your left wing fanatic heroes you can't see the facts for the cob webs in your unused brain. Maybe if you pulled your head out of some left wing "god's" excremental orifice you might learn something. When you can say with a straight face that Salon.com, or Daily Kos is "factual" instead of being insanely extremist, it is obvious you do not think for yourself. BTW, thanks for mentioning Townhall.com. I went there this morning, and yes, they are RW and their views are straight from the opposite extreme from you. I don't read politically biased sources spouting propaganda even if the web site which cited his name is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

You are so far to the left you see the common everyday moderate/liberal as conservative. I think in terms of extremes, both ends being evil. You think in terms of extremes, left being great and right being evil. Get out in the world, you may learn something.....or not, considering your past history. Extremist views are not the best way to run a society, no matter which extreme it is. Maybe if you weren't such an arrogant know it all people may accept you...or not.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're so obtuse you don't even know what you posted...



You are moving WAY beyond obtuse. You cite a book by Paul Kengor, and you don't know who Townhall.com is?

Townhall.com...the far right wing cesspool home of 'scholars' like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins and Paul Kengor.

Do you even know who Paul Kengor is? What next from this far right wing moron will you cite from? God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life? Or maybe you can expand on Kengor's theory that Satan duped gay people into supporting Marxist Marriage Equality?

It doesn't get any farther right, or any more ignorant.

BTW, you don't have to "do video clips", I provided a transcript. It shows just how obtuse your beloved puppet Ronbo was.

Paul Kengor may be right wing, but his biographies were simply statements about people; I don't read them for philosophy. You throw out all those conservative names like they are evil people. They may have different political opinions but they are not evil, any more than are Jon Stewart, Paul (stupid) Krugman, Moulitsas et al. All are biased swine, but there is truth in what they say whereas the lie is in their commentary. You have been brain washed so completely by your left wing fanatic heroes you can't see the facts for the cob webs in your unused brain. Maybe if you pulled your head out of some left wing "god's" excremental orifice you might learn something. When you can say with a straight face that Salon.com, or Daily Kos is "factual" instead of being insanely extremist, it is obvious you do not think for yourself. BTW, thanks for mentioning Townhall.com. I went there this morning, and yes, they are RW and their views are straight from the opposite extreme from you. I don't read politically biased sources spouting propaganda even if the web site which cited his name is. Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are so far to the left you see the common everyday moderate/liberal as conservative. Get out in the world, you may learn something.....or not, considering your past history. Extremist views are not the best way to run a society, no matter which extreme it is. Maybe if you weren't such an arrogant know it all people may accept you...or not.

The article from Salon is very FACTUAL. Why don't you try something new...READ IT.

You have only one real problem...FACTS. They confuse you. If they don't fit your dogmatic right wing mind, they must be ignored.

John F. Kennedy was a liberal. Ronald Reagan was NEVER a liberal. Those are the FACTS.

You worship Ronbo Reagan, but you refuse to listen to people who actually were part of his administration, like David Stockman, Paul Craig Roberts or Bruce Bartlett.


How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans
By Bruce Bartlett,
The Fiscal Times

The dirty secret is that Obama simply isn’t very liberal, nor is the Democratic Party any more. Certainly, the center of the party today is far to the right of where it was before 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected with a mission to move the party toward the right. It was widely believed by Democratic insiders that the nation had moved to the right during the Reagan era and that the Democratic Party had to do so as well or risk permanent loss of the White House.

It is only the blind hatred Republicans had for Clinton that prevented them from seeing that he governed as a moderate conservative – balancing the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, promoting free trade, and abolishing welfare, among other things. And it is only because the political spectrum has shifted to the right that Republicans cannot see to what extent Obama and his party are walking in Clinton’s footsteps.

One of the few national reporters who has made this point is the National Journal’s Major Garrett. In a December 13 column, he detailed the rightward drift of the Democratic Party on tax policy over the last 30 years.

“In ways inconceivable to Republicans of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Democrats have embraced almost all of their economic arguments about tax cuts. Back then, sizable swaths of the Democratic Party sought to protect higher tax rates for all. Many opposed President Reagan's 1981 across-the-board tax cuts and the indexing of tax brackets for inflation. Many were skeptical of Reagan's 1986 tax reform that consolidated 15 tax brackets into three and lowered the top marginal rate from 50 percent to 28 percent (with a "bubble rate" of 33 percent for some taxpayers). They despised the expanded child tax credit and marriage-penalty relief called for under the GOP's Contract With America.

“Now all of that is embedded in Democratic economic theory and political strategy. The only taxes that the most progressive Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson wants to raise are those affecting couples earning more than $267,600 and individuals earning more than $213,600 (these are the 2013 indexed amounts from President Obama's 2009 proposal of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals). Yes, some of this increase would hit some small businesses. But that can be finessed.”

I think that a lot of the Democratic Party’s rightward drift resulted from two factors. First is the continuing decline of organized labor from 24 percent of the labor force in 1973 to less than half that percentage in 2011. And the decline among private sector workers has been even more severe.
- See more at: How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans | The Fiscal Times

 

[dnsmith35]

Paul Kengor may be right wing, but his biographies were simply statements about people; I don't read them for philosophy. You throw out all those conservative names like they are evil people. They may have different political opinions but they are not evil, any more than are Jon Stewart, Paul (stupid) Krugman, Moulitsas et al. All are biased swine, but there is truth in what they say whereas the lie is in their commentary. You have been brain washed so completely by your left wing fanatic heroes you can't see the facts for the cob webs in your unused brain. Maybe if you pulled your head out of some left wing "god's" excremental orifice you might learn something. When you can say with a straight face that Salon.com, or Daily Kos is "factual" instead of being insanely extremist, it is obvious you do not think for yourself. BTW, thanks for mentioning Townhall.com. I went there this morning, and yes, they are RW and their views are straight from the opposite extreme from you. I don't read politically biased sources spouting propaganda even if the web site which cited his name is. Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are so far to the left you see the common everyday moderate/liberal as conservative. Get out in the world, you may learn something.....or not, considering your past history. Extremist views are not the best way to run a society, no matter which extreme it is. Maybe if you weren't such an arrogant know it all people may accept you...or not.

The article from Salon is very FACTUAL. Why don't you try something new...READ IT.

I did. Very biased.

You have only one real problem...FACTS. They confuse you. If they don't fit your dogmatic right wing mind, they must be ignored.

Facts? Left wing spin on facts, and they fit your left wing fanaticism.

John F. Kennedy was a liberal. Ronald Reagan was NEVER a liberal. Those are the FACTS.

Oh? So Reagan being an FDR Democrat is not liberal? ROFLMAO.

You worship Ronbo Reagan, but you refuse to listen to people who actually were part of his administration, like David Stockman, Paul Craig Roberts or Bruce Bartlett.

Where did you get the idea I worshiped Reagan? I thought he was a very smart man who started off liberal and moved to the right. Are you denying those facts?

How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans
By Bruce Bartlett,
The Fiscal Times

The dirty secret is that Obama simply isn’t very liberal, nor is the Democratic Party any more. Certainly, the center of the party today is far to the right of where it was before 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected with a mission to move the party toward the right. It was widely believed by Democratic insiders that the nation had moved to the right during the Reagan era and that the Democratic Party had to do so as well or risk permanent loss of the White House.

It is only the blind hatred Republicans had for Clinton that prevented them from seeing that he governed as a moderate conservative – balancing the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, promoting free trade, and abolishing welfare, among other things. And it is only because the political spectrum has shifted to the right that Republicans cannot see to what extent Obama and his party are walking in Clinton’s footsteps.

One of the few national reporters who has made this point is the National Journal’s Major Garrett. In a December 13 column, he detailed the rightward drift of the Democratic Party on tax policy over the last 30 years.

“In ways inconceivable to Republicans of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Democrats have embraced almost all of their economic arguments about tax cuts. Back then, sizable swaths of the Democratic Party sought to protect higher tax rates for all. Many opposed President Reagan's 1981 across-the-board tax cuts and the indexing of tax brackets for inflation. Many were skeptical of Reagan's 1986 tax reform that consolidated 15 tax brackets into three and lowered the top marginal rate from 50 percent to 28 percent (with a "bubble rate" of 33 percent for some taxpayers). They despised the expanded child tax credit and marriage-penalty relief called for under the GOP's Contract With America.

“Now all of that is embedded in Democratic economic theory and political strategy. The only taxes that the most progressive Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson wants to raise are those affecting couples earning more than $267,600 and individuals earning more than $213,600 (these are the 2013 indexed amounts from President Obama's 2009 proposal of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals). Yes, some of this increase would hit some small businesses. But that can be finessed.”

I think that a lot of the Democratic Party’s rightward drift resulted from two factors. First is the continuing decline of organized labor from 24 percent of the labor force in 1973 to less than half that percentage in 2011. And the decline among private sector workers has been even more severe.
- See more at: How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans | The Fiscal Times

Bartlett is an idiot if he believes the Democrat party moved to the right. Your believing him puts you into the same idiocy. In so far as the reduction of unionization, that came about because the government picked up where they had left off with regulation and enforcement of labor and safety laws. You worship the Unions but there usefulness has been reduced as the government under Democrats moved so far to the left. When you gauge left-right-center by the % of unionists instead of seeing that government protections have made unions passé for the most part. The 12% of our labor force which is union are the elite workers of America and you would rather have them making excess money than see an Indian worker support his family. Your left wing fanaticism is showing, in spades. One of your problems, as I have said before, is looking at a moderate/liberal and pegging them as RW. Your brain is clouded by all that left wing clap trap.

BTW, the man who really did something about reducing the taxes on the rich was JFK.

 

[Bfgrn]

The article from Salon is very FACTUAL. Why don't you try something new...READ IT.

You have only one real problem...FACTS. They confuse you. If they don't fit your dogmatic right wing mind, they must be ignored.

John F. Kennedy was a liberal. Ronald Reagan was NEVER a liberal. Those are the FACTS.

You worship Ronbo Reagan, but you refuse to listen to people who actually were part of his administration, like David Stockman, Paul Craig Roberts or Bruce Bartlett.


How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans
By Bruce Bartlett,
The Fiscal Times

The dirty secret is that Obama simply isn’t very liberal, nor is the Democratic Party any more. Certainly, the center of the party today is far to the right of where it was before 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected with a mission to move the party toward the right. It was widely believed by Democratic insiders that the nation had moved to the right during the Reagan era and that the Democratic Party had to do so as well or risk permanent loss of the White House.

It is only the blind hatred Republicans had for Clinton that prevented them from seeing that he governed as a moderate conservative – balancing the budget, cutting the capital gains tax, promoting free trade, and abolishing welfare, among other things. And it is only because the political spectrum has shifted to the right that Republicans cannot see to what extent Obama and his party are walking in Clinton’s footsteps.

One of the few national reporters who has made this point is the National Journal’s Major Garrett. In a December 13 column, he detailed the rightward drift of the Democratic Party on tax policy over the last 30 years.

“In ways inconceivable to Republicans of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Democrats have embraced almost all of their economic arguments about tax cuts. Back then, sizable swaths of the Democratic Party sought to protect higher tax rates for all. Many opposed President Reagan's 1981 across-the-board tax cuts and the indexing of tax brackets for inflation. Many were skeptical of Reagan's 1986 tax reform that consolidated 15 tax brackets into three and lowered the top marginal rate from 50 percent to 28 percent (with a "bubble rate" of 33 percent for some taxpayers). They despised the expanded child tax credit and marriage-penalty relief called for under the GOP's Contract With America.

“Now all of that is embedded in Democratic economic theory and political strategy. The only taxes that the most progressive Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson wants to raise are those affecting couples earning more than $267,600 and individuals earning more than $213,600 (these are the 2013 indexed amounts from President Obama's 2009 proposal of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals). Yes, some of this increase would hit some small businesses. But that can be finessed.”

I think that a lot of the Democratic Party’s rightward drift resulted from two factors. First is the continuing decline of organized labor from 24 percent of the labor force in 1973 to less than half that percentage in 2011. And the decline among private sector workers has been even more severe.
- See more at: How Democrats Became Liberal Republicans | The Fiscal Times

Bartlett is an idiot if he believes the Democrat party moved to the right. Your believing him puts you into the same idiocy. In so far as the reduction of unionization, that came about because the government picked up where they had left off with regulation and enforcement of labor and safety laws. You worship the Unions but there usefulness has been reduced as the government under Democrats moved so far to the left. When you gauge left-right-center by the % of unionists instead of seeing that government protections have made unions passé for the most part. The 12% of our labor force which is union are the elite workers of America and you would rather have them making excess money than see an Indian worker support his family. Your left wing fanaticism is showing, in spades. One of your problems, as I have said before, is looking at a moderate/liberal and pegging them as RW. Your brain is clouded by all that left wing clap trap.

BTW, the man who really did something about reducing the taxes on the rich was JFK.

OK, I challenge you to go through the Salon article and show me where it is not factual. Stop all the dogmatic whining and produce FACTS...

I'll be waiting....

And BTW, John F. Kennedy never passed any tax cuts...WHY?

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer