Starve the Beast

[CrusaderFrank]

Based on your political views I'm surprised to see you posting a link that speaks negatively about out of control spending, debt and deficits.

Starve the beast is right. The beast being gov't, their revenues and expenditures need to plummet for the good of americans.

Starve the Beast is right? You need to offer more than your opinion. Base your affirmative statement with some evidence and some projection on who benefits, who suffers?

When was the beast ever starved for revenue?

 

[Foxfyre]

See:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

It's an easy read and a short but comprehensive review of recent history.

I read the piece but, despite it being featured in Forbes that I respect enormously as a source, I find the content of this piece to be a bit suspect and slanted to create as less-than-accurate perception.

For example, in the piece you find this paragraph:

When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, one of his first acts in office was to push through Congress--with no Republican support--a big tax increase. Starve the beast theory predicted a big increase in spending as a consequence. But in fact, federal outlays fell from 22.1% of GDP in 1992 to 18.2% of GDP by the time Clinton left office.

But nowhere do you find the Clinton tax reform/tax cuts of 1997 mentioned that also have to be factored into the equation.

www.heritage.org/.../tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Also, tax cuts have INCREASED government revenues, so Bartlett is wrong in the trillions column

This is a well known fact to anyone who took macro economics in college.

 

[California Girl]

I wouldn't cut taxes, I'd cut spending. I'd change the business climate in this country to be more receptive to new businesses and investments, and get more revenue just by employing better tactics to get the economy growing again. I'd do revenue neutral tax reform for both individuals and companies, and I'd permanently allow profits earned abroad to be brought back into the US tax free. I would not allow spending levels to increase until and unless the deficit was less than the previous year's GDP growth. And if you blow it one year (emergencies) you have to make up the difference in the following year. And I'd require an act of Congress passed by 2/3 in both Houses to exceed the spending cap.

^^^ That.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You need to offer more than just a link.

I do? Why? The article spells out a policy the Republicans have followed since 1978, it is clear, concise and open for debate. Did you read it?

Just an observation....you hammer a person for his opinion and nothing to back it up. You offer a link to an article and yet, you do not respond to the article. Stick your neck out there, give your opinion and let the debate begin, wry. I could care less about the thread...mainly because it comes from you, and your a bleeding hear socialist that just likes to talk about your accomplishments in life, time after time, after time.

I point out my CV because I'm proud of my accomplishments - maybe if you or Dr (lol) D. would offer some of what you've done on life's journey I might take you and others a bit more seriously.

You didn't respond to the question, did you read the link? A link is supportive evidence for the point one is hoping to make. In this case I found the article a proper counterpoint to the ideology of the right and those who parrot the dogma of the right.

I am not a bleeding hear(t) socialist, that I do reject lassiez faire capitalism does not make me a 'commie' or a socialist. Suggesting it does is an example of concrete thinking. Though I am an agnostic, I believe in the real principles of Christianity. Does that make me a bleeding heart?

What I reject is the believe that great wealth equates to great wisdom. I fear our movement toward plutocracy and don't understand how any person of even average intelligent cannot see the course set by the Republicans is a rejection of what made our nation, "a shinning city on a hill".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for anyone to post what years the beast was ever starved.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4]Jeopardy Theme - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out.

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again.

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence.

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes.

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

 

[WillowTree]

Looks like a few facts put the echo chamber into a buzz. Of course and as usual the message is not debated, the messenger is attacked.

You accusing others of being an echo chamber, that's rich lol.

My point was before you threw yourself into victim-mode, was how can you agree with the article and have unwavering, unquestioning support for a man who's views are the complete opposite of what the article's author preaches?

I have no idea what you asked; and I'm not a victim. By the time I was 26 I had more to do than spend hours on a message board; at 26 I had completed service to my country, held a graduate degree, was employed as a law enforcement officer, was married and had purchased a home. So FU and your patronizing remarks, now try to phrase your question in standard English.

folks we got us some ass chap on display here!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I do? Why? The article spells out a policy the Republicans have followed since 1978, it is clear, concise and open for debate. Did you read it?

Just an observation....you hammer a person for his opinion and nothing to back it up. You offer a link to an article and yet, you do not respond to the article. Stick your neck out there, give your opinion and let the debate begin, wry. I could care less about the thread...mainly because it comes from you, and your a bleeding hear socialist that just likes to talk about your accomplishments in life, time after time, after time.

I point out my CV because I'm proud of my accomplishments - maybe if you or Dr (lol) D. would offer some of what you've done on life's journey I might take you and others a bit more seriously.

You didn't respond to the question, did you read the link? A link is supportive evidence for the point one is hoping to make. In this case I found the article a proper counterpoint to the ideology of the right and those who parrot the dogma of the right.

I am not a bleeding hear(t) socialist, that I do reject lassiez faire capitalism does not make me a 'commie' or a socialist. Suggesting it does is an example of concrete thinking. Though I am an agnostic, I believe in the real principles of Christianity. Does that make me a bleeding heart?

What I reject is the believe that great wealth equates to great wisdom. I fear our movement toward plutocracy and don't understand how any person of even average intelligent cannot see the course set by the Republicans is a rejection of what made our nation, "a shinning city on a hill".

So to you, anonymous people obtain credibility over the internet by listing their accomplishments? I disagree, I never blindly believe what anonymous ppl tell me on the internet. If you want to know the truth, I'm not a doctor and have repeated so multiple times on the board. I have an MBA, that's as far as my education has gone so far. Dr. Drock is simply a nickname. But if you feel so insecure that you have to repeatedly announce accomplishments you may or may not have, go ahead. But be advised it just makes you look pathetic.

I can't believe that someone who's on here acting like he's so smart can't see that all the policies the author spoke out against are what Obama employs. Increasing spending+decreasing taxes, exactly what Obama has done, exactly what the article is against.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out. Which would be phased out and what might that do to the number of Americans out of work?

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again. LOL, like first responders whose jobs are being eliminated by the New Right?

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence. What of the corruption by private sector contractors, medical care providers and private security forces. Will they continue to perform their 'duties' unregulated and instead of ripping off the government (all of us at once, they can rip us off one at a time)?

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes. Who are those lobbyists? Some are there to protect the golden goose by 'donating campaign contributions to law makers. Wouldn't the repeal of CU v. FEC be a first positive step?

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing. Many, many do; some are rotten and too few of them end up in prison.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just an observation....you hammer a person for his opinion and nothing to back it up. You offer a link to an article and yet, you do not respond to the article. Stick your neck out there, give your opinion and let the debate begin, wry. I could care less about the thread...mainly because it comes from you, and your a bleeding hear socialist that just likes to talk about your accomplishments in life, time after time, after time.

I point out my CV because I'm proud of my accomplishments - maybe if you or Dr (lol) D. would offer some of what you've done on life's journey I might take you and others a bit more seriously.

You didn't respond to the question, did you read the link? A link is supportive evidence for the point one is hoping to make. In this case I found the article a proper counterpoint to the ideology of the right and those who parrot the dogma of the right.

I am not a bleeding hear(t) socialist, that I do reject lassiez faire capitalism does not make me a 'commie' or a socialist. Suggesting it does is an example of concrete thinking. Though I am an agnostic, I believe in the real principles of Christianity. Does that make me a bleeding heart?

What I reject is the believe that great wealth equates to great wisdom. I fear our movement toward plutocracy and don't understand how any person of even average intelligent cannot see the course set by the Republicans is a rejection of what made our nation, "a shinning city on a hill".

So to you, anonymous people obtain credibility over the internet by listing their accomplishments? I disagree, I never blindly believe what anonymous ppl tell me on the internet. If you want to know the truth, I'm not a doctor and have repeated so multiple times on the board. I have an MBA, that's as far as my education has gone so far. Dr. Drock is simply a nickname. But if you feel so insecure that you have to repeatedly announce accomplishments you may or may not have, go ahead. But be advised it just makes you look pathetic.

I can't believe that someone who's on here acting like he's so smart can't see that all the policies the author spoke out against are what Obama employs. Increasing spending+decreasing taxes, exactly what Obama has done, exactly what the article is against.

"all the author spoke out against are what Obama employs"? Which author are you referencing? Not the link I posted, unless you've employed some magical thinking. For those who missed the link I will post it once again:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/ta...arve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

 

[Dr.Drock]

I point out my CV because I'm proud of my accomplishments - maybe if you or Dr (lol) D. would offer some of what you've done on life's journey I might take you and others a bit more seriously.

You didn't respond to the question, did you read the link? A link is supportive evidence for the point one is hoping to make. In this case I found the article a proper counterpoint to the ideology of the right and those who parrot the dogma of the right.

I am not a bleeding hear(t) socialist, that I do reject lassiez faire capitalism does not make me a 'commie' or a socialist. Suggesting it does is an example of concrete thinking. Though I am an agnostic, I believe in the real principles of Christianity. Does that make me a bleeding heart?

What I reject is the believe that great wealth equates to great wisdom. I fear our movement toward plutocracy and don't understand how any person of even average intelligent cannot see the course set by the Republicans is a rejection of what made our nation, "a shinning city on a hill".

So to you, anonymous people obtain credibility over the internet by listing their accomplishments? I disagree, I never blindly believe what anonymous ppl tell me on the internet. If you want to know the truth, I'm not a doctor and have repeated so multiple times on the board. I have an MBA, that's as far as my education has gone so far. Dr. Drock is simply a nickname. But if you feel so insecure that you have to repeatedly announce accomplishments you may or may not have, go ahead. But be advised it just makes you look pathetic.

I can't believe that someone who's on here acting like he's so smart can't see that all the policies the author spoke out against are what Obama employs. Increasing spending+decreasing taxes, exactly what Obama has done, exactly what the article is against.

"all the author spoke out against are what Obama employs"? Which author are you referencing? Not the link I posted, unless you've employed some magical thinking. For those who missed the link I will post it once again:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' Page 3 of 3 - Forbes.com

Has Obama increased spending and continued the Bush tax cuts?

In your answer please provide a yes or no, then after that you can provide the list of excuses for why it is so.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out. Which would be phased out and what might that do to the number of Americans out of work?

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again. LOL, like first responders whose jobs are being eliminated by the New Right?

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence. What of the corruption by private sector contractors, medical care providers and private security forces. Will they continue to perform their 'duties' unregulated and instead of ripping off the government (all of us at once, they can rip us off one at a time)?

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes. Who are those lobbyists? Some are there to protect the golden goose by 'donating campaign contributions to law makers. Wouldn't the repeal of CU v. FEC be a first positive step?

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing. Many, many do; some are rotten and too few of them end up in prison.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So to you, anonymous people obtain credibility over the internet by listing their accomplishments? I disagree, I never blindly believe what anonymous ppl tell me on the internet. If you want to know the truth, I'm not a doctor and have repeated so multiple times on the board. I have an MBA, that's as far as my education has gone so far. Dr. Drock is simply a nickname. But if you feel so insecure that you have to repeatedly announce accomplishments you may or may not have, go ahead. But be advised it just makes you look pathetic.

I can't believe that someone who's on here acting like he's so smart can't see that all the policies the author spoke out against are what Obama employs. Increasing spending+decreasing taxes, exactly what Obama has done, exactly what the article is against.

"all the author spoke out against are what Obama employs"? Which author are you referencing? Not the link I posted, unless you've employed some magical thinking. For those who missed the link I will post it once again:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/ta...arve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Has Obama increased spending and continued the Bush tax cuts?

Yes. In response to a crisis and to a political necessity - not do to ideology.

In your answer please provide a yes or no, then after that you can provide the list of excuses for why it is so.

I need no excuses and I have no belief that I will convince you or crusaderfrank of anything. But thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to provide a list, it's very mature of you.

 

[candycorn]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out. Which would be phased out and what might that do to the number of Americans out of work?

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again. LOL, like first responders whose jobs are being eliminated by the New Right?

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence. What of the corruption by private sector contractors, medical care providers and private security forces. Will they continue to perform their 'duties' unregulated and instead of ripping off the government (all of us at once, they can rip us off one at a time)?

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes. Who are those lobbyists? Some are there to protect the golden goose by 'donating campaign contributions to law makers. Wouldn't the repeal of CU v. FEC be a first positive step?

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing. Many, many do; some are rotten and too few of them end up in prison.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

So...ALL of the founders felt the same way? Unlikely.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"all the author spoke out against are what Obama employs"? Which author are you referencing? Not the link I posted, unless you've employed some magical thinking. For those who missed the link I will post it once again:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

Has Obama increased spending and continued the Bush tax cuts?

Yes. In response to a crisis and to a political necessity - not do to ideology.

In your answer please provide a yes or no, then after that you can provide the list of excuses for why it is so.

I need no excuses and I have no belief that I will convince you or crusaderfrank of anything. But thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to provide a list, it's very mature of you.

I'm as anti Frank's party as I am anti yours.

But thank you for agreeing, whatever the reasoning, that Obama's economic policies are exactly what the author was speaking out against.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post and exactly why I'm surprised that you're advertising economic policies that go 100% against the man that I've never even seen you question once on the board. The Obama.

The man who says FU on a message board providing a lecture on maturity. Adorable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out. Which would be phased out and what might that do to the number of Americans out of work?

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again. LOL, like first responders whose jobs are being eliminated by the New Right?

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence. What of the corruption by private sector contractors, medical care providers and private security forces. Will they continue to perform their 'duties' unregulated and instead of ripping off the government (all of us at once, they can rip us off one at a time)?

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes. Who are those lobbyists? Some are there to protect the golden goose by 'donating campaign contributions to law makers. Wouldn't the repeal of CU v. FEC be a first positive step?

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing. Many, many do; some are rotten and too few of them end up in prison.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

Sounds like Socialism to me

How's that "War on Poverty" going?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If I had absolute power to make one change in the U.S. Federal Government, it would be to remove the incentive to spend more than the government takes in.

I would make it illegal for the federal government at any level to use one dime of the people's money, whether acquired through taxes or borrowed from anybody, to benefit any individual, group, entity, or special interest that did not benefit all without respect to political party, ideology, or socioeconomic status.

Existing entitlement programs would have to be phased out slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those made dependent on those programs.

With that one law you accomplish:

1, Three fourths of the federal bureaucracies would be closed down immediately or phased out. Which would be phased out and what might that do to the number of Americans out of work?

2. Instead of career politicians whose primary focus is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at taxpayer expense, we would have true citizen public servants running for high office again. LOL, like first responders whose jobs are being eliminated by the New Right?

3. 90% of the graft and corruption in government would be eliminated as well as the corruption of the people receiving the benevolence. What of the corruption by private sector contractors, medical care providers and private security forces. Will they continue to perform their 'duties' unregulated and instead of ripping off the government (all of us at once, they can rip us off one at a time)?

4. Lobbyists and massive corporate money would be taken out of the equation as they would no longer be able to manipulate and utilize the federal government for their own purposes. Who are those lobbyists? Some are there to protect the golden goose by 'donating campaign contributions to law makers. Wouldn't the repeal of CU v. FEC be a first positive step?

5. Those in government would be interested in doing the right thing with government again instead of the personally beneficial thing. Many, many do; some are rotten and too few of them end up in prison.

THAT is how you starve the beast. You won't do it by lowering or raising taxes with the government we have now.

You shouldn't want to Starve the Beast, the Beast must be tamed so that the greatest good to the greatest number is the goal of all government programs.

You're missing the point. The Founders intended to free us from government that promised good but that came at the price of individual liberty, option, opportunity, innovation. There is no such thing as a government that willingly gives up power once it has it. A government with the power to do 'good' also has the power to be self serving and to do 'bad' or to do any damn thing it wants. And there is no government in history that started out advertising the intent to subject the people to its will, but given the power to do so, did not wind up doing just that. They all promise good. But they all wind up being self serving.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money to benefit anybody or anything that does not benefit all, and you remove the government's power to use our money to manipulate the people however it wants and/or to use the people's money for self serving purposes.

Remove the government's power to use the people's money for self serving purposes, and you return the process of governing to the people which was the Founder's intent from the beginning.

I don't believe anyone knows what the Founder's intended. The Constitution was a document created through compromise framed by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. They (if one can generalize) feared both a too strong and a too weak central government.

The Supreme Court will decide what is and what is not Constitutional. But keep in mind the men and women who now sit on the Court will be judged by their replacements - so, notwithstanding the Originalist's Argument, the Constitution is a living document.

But that debate is for another thread, on topic a government, IMO, must focus on policies which offer the greatest good for the greatest number. Oligarchies of the left and right do not meet that standard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"all the author spoke out against are what Obama employs"? Which author are you referencing? Not the link I posted, unless you've employed some magical thinking. For those who missed the link I will post it once again:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

Has Obama increased spending and continued the Bush tax cuts?

Yes. In response to a crisis and to a political necessity - not do to ideology.

In your answer please provide a yes or no, then after that you can provide the list of excuses for why it is so.

I need no excuses and I have no belief that I will convince you or crusaderfrank of anything. But thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to provide a list, it's very mature of you.

I can be convinced. I'm convinced the article you linked to pinned my BS meter. So, I'll ask again, when was the Beast ever starved?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I need no excuses and I have no belief that I will convince you or crusaderfrank of anything. But thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to provide a list, it's very mature of you.

I'm as anti Frank's party as I am anti yours.

But thank you for agreeing, whatever the reasoning, that Obama's economic policies are exactly what the author was speaking out against.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post and exactly why I'm surprised that you're advertising economic policies that go 100% against the man that I've never even seen you question once on the board. The Obama.

The man who says FU on a message board providing a lecture on maturity. Adorable.

Don't patronize and you won't get an angry response. So, you're an Independent meaning you don't support the Democratic or Republican Party. But, if you vote you have no choice unless you wish to toss your vote away. But I digress. What should Obama do (have done) in the face of McConnell 'think'; Boehner's incompetence and Cantor's radicalism?