What do liberals want the US to be?

[Steinlight]

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

John Keynes, it was a typo, it is interesting how you attack a typo considering your freakish post format with several typos and random caps. Anyways, the point stands,trying to connect criticism of American organized labor in the latter half of the 20th century to Keynes or Libertarianism is absurd. Union membership has been on the decline since the late 50s because workers have recognize their inherent corruption and inability to address their needs.
http://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/union-density1.jpg

Your defense of union corruption shows that you have no sense of history and have never held a job in an industry with union trades. I could refer you to anecdotal examples from myself in my friends in the construction trade, where union construction workers for example wouldn't move dry wall or wire upstairs because that was the movers job, so they would sit their all day and nothing would get done while we would wait for the mover. For example, with auto manufacturers, UAW didn't even allow companies to build different carlines in the same plant. That doesn't show up in salaries, but it does in higher costs. So it wasn't just about high union wages, it was about inefficiency and costs.

MORE right wing bullshit. Shocking

The guy attacking unions, who like ANYTHING has good and bad, is fine will Mittens paying 14% taxes on $20 million income right? But it's the guy making $50-$60 grand that's the problem, NOT the CEO's who BARGAINED with the unions, lol

UNIONS created the conditions for jobs to go overseas right? Those construction jobs? Bet you have them in China today right? lol

Instead of being envious of union benefits, more people should organize or join one. The waning of the middle class coincides with corporate and right-wing attacks on unions.

You are the only bullshitter, and clearly have never held a job affiliated with unions in any way, you are just a partisan hack. It is ideological hacks like you who destroyed the unions. Shifting them form organizations focused on workers interests to bloated bureaucracies based on liberal political ideology. One of the strongest examples of this is union leadership today supporting amnesty, despite middle class americans opposing it. And you wonder why no one wants a part of them? They don't represent their interests and put social liberalism before the interests of their members.

You equate everyone who points out union corruption in the US to a Romney supporter or a supporter of corporate excess. I oppose corporate and union corruption. With that attitude, it is no wonder union membership continues to decline. You can't conceive that a growing number of people are represented by either party, and are sick of Democrats and Republicans, particularly white working class people.

Unions certainly contributed. Honestly, you are so thick, I was giving a person example, along with the UAW example, to show union inefficiency. You have no response, so you create a strawman.

 

[Dad2three]

MORE from your link

Former U.S. President John Adams was probably one of the earliest defenders of a traditional social order in Revolutionary America. In his Defence of the Constitution (1787) Adams attacked the ideas of radicals like Thomas Paine (LIBERAL!!!!), who advocated for a unicameral legislature (Adams deemed it too democratic). His translation of Discourses on Davila (1790), which also contained his own commentary, was an examination of "human motivation in politics". Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.



WEIRD?

Adams believed that human motivation inevitably led to dangerous impulses where the government would need to sometimes intervene.

WHAT?
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, your point? Conservatives aren't liberals, we don't just support freedom for freedom's sake, we support containing societal excess and don't believe men are angels. We believe there is a role for the government to act in the social and economic sphere to conserve society.

"we support containing societal excess"

HOW? LOL

BIG GOV'T? Please explain Alex rejecting Laizze affair bullshit? lo;

Economic excess through programs like the American system, making sure the economy serves the nation,as opposed to global capital taking priority over the national interest. Curbing social excess and promoting the growth of social capital by promoting procreation, marriage, drug laws, strict immigration laws etc.

You Klowns overthrew the American system dummy. Tell me you aren't a Reagan supporter? GOP 'believes in' free trade'. YOUR premise of party over self huh? lol

EVERYTHING you said means bullshit. It was nothing. Try to do better Bubba. Seriously!

I am not obsessed with Reagan like you seem to be, no, I don't blindly support Reagan and disagree with things he did.

Reagan had nothing to do with the American System, the American System was America's economic plan in the first half of the 19th Century. From 1833 onward, tariffs fell from their highest rate in 1828 with the Tariff of Abominations and the program was phased out over time.

You don't know what you are talking about, and are mentally ill.

Got it, you are a lying moron. We had heavy (ebbed and flowed) protectionists policies until conservatives 'free trade' in the 1970's Bubba


Now about this BULLSHIT on AIG and G/S found ANYTHING other than your link with the guy with the crystal ball Bubba? lol


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits



CARTER AND CLINTON HUH? LOL

 

[Steinlight]

You do realize the Federalists were Burkean Conservatives? The American System represented a patriotic America first economic have been advocating for from the beginning of the country.
Traditionalist conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am not going to let neo-liberal like you take credit for this inherently conservative system.

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

Union membership declined during the late 50s and 60s, when there was the greatest period of wage equality.

 

[bripat9643]

progressive statists sure as hell do, and they are part of the modern "liberal" pantheon.

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

I've got news for you, numskull: what you described is the British system that existed in 1780. It's called mercantilism. It was just as stupid then as it is now. Under the doctrine of free trade, on the other hand, the British Empire became fabulously wealthy.

 

[bripat9643]

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

The multiplier effect is a myth. Keynesianism isn't economics. It's a con.

I think you are thinking 'supply side' Bubba

I'm no believer in the "supply side" mantra. However, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. Legitimate economists have known this since Keynes published his various assaults on logic and facts.

Sure, that's why the majority of the world uses it. Maybe you are thinking Austrian?

I've already explained why politicians love the con called "Keynesian economics." Politicians are nothing more than con men, and Keynesian ism is a prepackaged con that allow them to loot the wealth of the world.

 

[Steinlight]

Reagan didn't sign NAFTA, Clinton did, here is the link.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now are you contending Reagan made Clinton sign it? If so, what is your proof? Are you suggesting Clinton had no agency? This is an absurd argument that Reagan is responsible for Clinton's action.

As to conservative policy. I already responded, you just ignored me. But I will repost my reply.

Your characterization of what "conservative policy" is inaccurate. A left wing caricature more than anything else.

But lets take it issue by issue. My biggest objection out of the one's you mentioned is that WW1 is correct and non-interventionist conservatives were wrong in opposing it.

Why should we have gotten involved in the first place?

How did this war serve American interests?

I think non-interventionist conservatives and anti-war socialists alike who opposed the war were on the right side, and their position was vindicated by the bloody and disastrous result of WW1.

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?

No one said, they were in the clear, whatever the hell that means. What I am saying, is the ultimate responsibility for NAFTA lies on Clinton as he signed it. What are you saying, NAFTA was ok for Clinton to sign because Reagan and Bush supported it as well? You aren't making a coherent argument.

Bush wasn't a conservative, and you don't understand what neo-liberalism is. It is an ideology that transcends party. Dont attack me because you are stupid and don't know what it is.
neoliberalism political and social science Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Dad2three]

LOL! Hear HEAR!

Now do the one wherein ya explain that Socialist Policy drove down the skills sets of the available workers, and drove up the cost of doing business and as a result it was SOCIALIST POLICY that 'sent jobs overseas!'.

They love that one...

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

Union membership declined during the late 50s and 60s, when there was the greatest period of wage equality.

Yeah, when dummy's like you, figured there was no need for unions anymore, then your conservative 'think tanks' came in and wiped them out! Amazing how many vote against their own best interests, we see it all the time in the poor, uneducated south, voting GOP and not backing unions, the morons!

 

[Disir]

The biggest mistake you can make is thinking that it was some how for "your team".

Hey, I just said it wasn't for the Repubs but rather against Obama, the Dems and their policies. Given the denial and arrogance of peeps like you we are likely to see a repeat of 2014 in 2016.

No, you won't.

 

[Dad2three]

More bullshit on your part. You make up a position for liberals and then attack your phony position

The state has a role in any society. Most functions in our lives are best filled at the individual level but many are more efficiently performed by the state

So tramping over people's rights is a matter of efficiency?

Seig Heil, herr gruppenfuhrer.

Which of your rights have been trampled? Are you free to earn a living? Are you free to obtain property? Are you free to express your grievences?

How are you being repressed?

How about the right to the unfettered use of the product of one's labor?

The Right to Openly Market one's services to the public and to provide one's services without need of outside sanction?

The Right to hunt and fish without the burden of outside sanction?

Work through those and I'll get you some more... .

Reintroducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

I've got news for you, numskull: what you described is the British system that existed in 1780. It's called mercantilism. It was just as stupid then as it is now. Under the doctrine of free trade, on the other hand, the British Empire became fabulously wealthy.

Weird how the US overtook them right? lol

It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century.Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

The multiplier effect is a myth. Keynesianism isn't economics. It's a con.

I think you are thinking 'supply side' Bubba

I'm no believer in the "supply side" mantra. However, Keynesianism is pure Voo Doo. Legitimate economists have known this since Keynes published his various assaults on logic and facts.

Sure, that's why the majority of the world uses it. Maybe you are thinking Austrian?

I've already explained why politicians love the con called "Keynesian economics." Politicians are nothing more than con men, and Keynesian ism is a prepackaged con that allow them to loot the wealth of the world.

STILL waiting for the state or nation using libertarian philosophy? EVER LOL

 

[Steinlight]

Of course unions stifled competition in the 1980s. Does anyone remember how terrible American cars were back then? Union corruption(only concerned with dues above the sustainability of the company), along with Corporate offshoring through free trade, resulted in America becoming uncompetitive in manufacturing. We are paying the price until this day.

The left is under the delusion that unions are somehow immune to the corruption that any other large scale entity is, whether it be government or corporations. In fact, unions and corporations are working hand in glove at the moment to support Amnesty.

Samuel Gompers would be rolling in his grave if he saw how unions like the SEIU are undermining American workers by supporting the flooding of our country with cheap foreign labor.

People aren't in unions anymore because they recognize organized labor doesn't have their interests at heart anymore and are purely democratic partisan organizations.

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

Union membership declined during the late 50s and 60s, when there was the greatest period of wage equality.

Yeah, when dummy's like you, figured there was no need for unions anymore, then your conservative 'think tanks' came in and wiped them out! Amazing how many vote against their own best interests, we see it all the time in the poor, uneducated south, voting GOP and not backing unions, the morons!

What, I thought Reagan destroyed unions, now it is dumb southerners fault? How come income rose through the 50s into the 70s when union membership declined?

Yes, there are no need for unions that are explicitly hostile to the American worker and support foreign labor.
SEIU - Service Employees International Union - immigration

These unions need to be liquidated and put in the control of patriotic Americans.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, Though Heritage Foundation came up with NAFTA, Ronnie announced it the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and Poppy negotiated it and was passed with overwhelming GOP support, it's Clinton's baby *shaking head*

ONCE MORE!!!


The US made the right call by entering WWI. After the Lusitania was sunk, and thousands of American lives were lost, America had no other choice. Then the Germans sent the Zimmer telegram which told Mexico to attack the US. If Germany would of won WWI, and America would't of entered the war, then what would of stopped Germany from invading America?

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?

No one said, they were in the clear, whatever the hell that means. What I am saying, is the ultimate responsibility for NAFTA lies on Clinton as he signed it. What are you saying, NAFTA was ok for Clinton to sign because Reagan and Bush supported it as well? You aren't making a coherent argument.

Bush wasn't a conservative, and you don't understand what neo-liberalism is. It is an ideology that transcends party. Dont attack me because you are stupid and don't know what it is.
neoliberalism political and social science Encyclopedia Britannica

I get it Bubba, I just think it's strange you call Clinton a neo liberal, when Reagan AND BOTH BUSHES were.lol


I don't think you are stupid Bubba, dishonest and a POS, yes, stupid. Nah

 

[Steinlight]

Your claims about NAFTA are simply false as shown by my link. Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994, long after Reagan or Bush Sr. were out of office. Are you saying NAFTA is ok because Bush and Regan supported it as well? What is your point? All you are doing is making excuses, it is pathetic. Have some balls and condemn Clinton for selling out American workers. Stop being a hack carrying his water.

America made the wrong call entering World War One. Over 100,000 Americans died and no benefits were achieved. The only outcomes were the Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot is responsible for the religious and ethnic strife in the middle east, as it drew the artificial borders for countries like Syria in Iraq where there has been internal sunni, shia, and kurdish conflict. The Balfour Declaration led to the current Israel Palestine Conflict. And the undue punishment placed on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles helped create conditions that contributed to the rise of Hitler.

As for the Lusitania, if America hadn't been giving military armaments to the british on civilian liners, which was reckless and irresponsible. Not only did the move defy the prevailing anti-war sentiment in America that got Wilson elected in the first place, it put those innocent lives at risks in a combat situation.

The Zimmerman Telegram was war propaganda. Mexico had no means to militarily threaten the United States, and Germany did not have the means to provide them aid as they didn't have the necessary gold reserves at the time to finance such an operation. It was a stupid move on the Germans part. But it was pure hubris, not a threat to the United States, and responsible parties knew this. Also, no one who even cited the Zimmerman Telegram as evidence for war made the contention you did, that Germany could have invaded the US with their own Army. The Germany Army barely moved only 60 miles over 4 years, at the height of their advance on the Western Front, how would they cross the Atlantic, and much less do so successfully? What an absurd argument.
Western Front World War I - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If America hadn't entered the war, England and France would have been forced to surrender and millions of lives would have been saved.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?

No one said, they were in the clear, whatever the hell that means. What I am saying, is the ultimate responsibility for NAFTA lies on Clinton as he signed it. What are you saying, NAFTA was ok for Clinton to sign because Reagan and Bush supported it as well? You aren't making a coherent argument.

Bush wasn't a conservative, and you don't understand what neo-liberalism is. It is an ideology that transcends party. Dont attack me because you are stupid and don't know what it is.
neoliberalism political and social science Encyclopedia Britannica

I get it Bubba, I just think it's strange you call Clinton a neo liberal, when Reagan AND BOTH BUSHES were.lol


I don't think you are stupid Bubba, dishonest and a POS, yes, stupid. Nah

They all were neo-liberals. But you still haven't explained. Is Clinton correct for supporting free trade because Bush and Reagan did? You still haven't explained this rationale.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

Union membership declined during the late 50s and 60s, when there was the greatest period of wage equality.

Yeah, when dummy's like you, figured there was no need for unions anymore, then your conservative 'think tanks' came in and wiped them out! Amazing how many vote against their own best interests, we see it all the time in the poor, uneducated south, voting GOP and not backing unions, the morons!

What, I thought Reagan destroyed unions, now it is dumb southerners fault? How come income rose through the 50s into the 70s when union membership declined?

Yes, there are no need for unions that are explicitly hostile to the American worker and support foreign labor.
SEIU - Service Employees International Union - immigration

These unions need to be liquidated and put in the control of patriotic Americans.

I get it Bubba, WHY would a union with a heavy Hispanic membership support a path to citizenship when self deporting would work so well, lol

IF you were EVER honest and got off your Birch bullshit I might have a heart attack. Bet you think Uncle Walter was the reason the US lost in Vietnam too right? That gawdamn red right?

 

[Dad2three]

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[5][6] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[7]

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?

No one said, they were in the clear, whatever the hell that means. What I am saying, is the ultimate responsibility for NAFTA lies on Clinton as he signed it. What are you saying, NAFTA was ok for Clinton to sign because Reagan and Bush supported it as well? You aren't making a coherent argument.

Bush wasn't a conservative, and you don't understand what neo-liberalism is. It is an ideology that transcends party. Dont attack me because you are stupid and don't know what it is.
neoliberalism political and social science Encyclopedia Britannica

I get it Bubba, I just think it's strange you call Clinton a neo liberal, when Reagan AND BOTH BUSHES were.lol


I don't think you are stupid Bubba, dishonest and a POS, yes, stupid. Nah

They all were neo-liberals. But you still haven't explained. Is Clinton correct for supporting free trade because Bush and Reagan did? You still haven't explained this rationale.

IF you remember (AND HONEST) LIBERALS were against 'free trade', and like Iraq war (Dubya's war of choice), 60% of Dems in Congress have voted against EVERY 'free trade agreement since NAFTA!

Yes, BJ Bill was, BY FAR THE BEST conservative Prez since Ike.

EDIT. Looks like Obama will come in second place!

 

[Steinlight]

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

Union membership declined during the late 50s and 60s, when there was the greatest period of wage equality.

Yeah, when dummy's like you, figured there was no need for unions anymore, then your conservative 'think tanks' came in and wiped them out! Amazing how many vote against their own best interests, we see it all the time in the poor, uneducated south, voting GOP and not backing unions, the morons!

What, I thought Reagan destroyed unions, now it is dumb southerners fault? How come income rose through the 50s into the 70s when union membership declined?

Yes, there are no need for unions that are explicitly hostile to the American worker and support foreign labor.
SEIU - Service Employees International Union - immigration

These unions need to be liquidated and put in the control of patriotic Americans.

I get it Bubba, WHY would a union with a heavy Hispanic membership support a path to citizenship when self deporting would work so well, lol

IF you were EVER honest and got off your Birch bullshit I might have a heart attack. Bet you think Uncle Walter was the reason the US lost in Vietnam too right? That gawdamn red right?

You admit they are primarily hispanic race based and wonder why Americans don't join them? Seriously? Why would any non-hispanic native born worker support a union that wants to bring in more immigrants just because they are hispanic?

Same with the AFL-CIO, both support amnesty. The AFL was originally a pro-American organization that opposed immigration to protect American jobs. Now they have sold out.
American Federation of Labor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am always amused at the left when they say we vote against are self interest, excuse us we know how to do math. $3 bucks for a pack of Smokes is a lot cheaper then $10 bucks a pack.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, it was unions in the 1980's that caused the auto problems *shaking head*

NOT the auto comps who 20 years later would forget the oil shock and give US SUV crazxe where Dubya gave tax credit for MONSTER trucks (and SUV's) ONLY, ,yeah, must've been the unions fault. After all 35% of US in the 1960's down to 7% today and half of that is Gov't workers, lol

I get it, the unions should've lowered wages right? I mean THAT would've stopped off shoring right? lol NOT that Gov't policy could've stopped it?



Libertarians are correct right? ONE state or nation to EVER use their philosophy? lol


You are a funny little weasel, I give you that!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Wow, that is one crazy tangent. You have a special mind to somehow connect the excess of American unions in the 1980s to Milton Keynes and Libertarianism. I want some of the meds you are taking.

Milton Keynes? lol

Yeah, it was the 'excess' of unions who had already been shrinking by the 1980's before Ronnie declared war on them!


NOT that it was the auto manufactures fault for resting on their laurels, lol


History has shown us that having more people able to afford the necessities of life IMPROVES the economy.

The period of greatest wage equality between workers and management was also the period where this nation boomed, seeing unparalleled growth for ALL classes (yes, even for the very rich). In fact, the rich did better under policies that they are crying about now then they do under so-called job-creator policies

John Keynes, it was a typo, it is interesting how you attack a typo considering your freakish post format with several typos and random caps. Anyways, the point stands,trying to connect criticism of American organized labor in the latter half of the 20th century to Keynes or Libertarianism is absurd. Union membership has been on the decline since the late 50s because workers have recognize their inherent corruption and inability to address their needs.
http://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/union-density1.jpg

Your defense of union corruption shows that you have no sense of history and have never held a job in an industry with union trades. I could refer you to anecdotal examples from myself in my friends in the construction trade, where union construction workers for example wouldn't move dry wall or wire upstairs because that was the movers job, so they would sit their all day and nothing would get done while we would wait for the mover. For example, with auto manufacturers, UAW didn't even allow companies to build different carlines in the same plant. That doesn't show up in salaries, but it does in higher costs. So it wasn't just about high union wages, it was about inefficiency and costs.

MORE right wing bullshit. Shocking

The guy attacking unions, who like ANYTHING has good and bad, is fine will Mittens paying 14% taxes on $20 million income right? But it's the guy making $50-$60 grand that's the problem, NOT the CEO's who BARGAINED with the unions, lol

UNIONS created the conditions for jobs to go overseas right? Those construction jobs? Bet you have them in China today right? lol

Instead of being envious of union benefits, more people should organize or join one. The waning of the middle class coincides with corporate and right-wing attacks on unions.

You are the only bullshitter, and clearly have never held a job affiliated with unions in any way, you are just a partisan hack. It is ideological hacks like you who destroyed the unions. Shifting them form organizations focused on workers interests to bloated bureaucracies based on liberal political ideology. One of the strongest examples of this is union leadership today supporting amnesty, despite middle class americans opposing it. And you wonder why no one wants a part of them? They don't represent their interests and put social liberalism before the interests of their members.

You equate everyone who points out union corruption in the US to a Romney supporter or a supporter of corporate excess. I oppose corporate and union corruption. With that attitude, it is no wonder union membership continues to decline. You can't conceive that a growing number of people are represented by either party, and are sick of Democrats and Republicans, particularly white working class people.

Unions certainly contributed. Honestly, you are so thick, I was giving a person example, along with the UAW example, to show union inefficiency. You have no response, so you create a strawman.

Talk about strawman, lol

Actually WAS union for 11 years Bubba, CWA...Yeah, it's 'union corruption'.lol

The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.

 

[Steinlight]

Ceremonially, you do realize what this means right? As in not legally binding. Clinton signed NAFTA officially in 1994, long after Bush left office.

And you want ME to agree that Clinton AND Dubya were at fault for the subprime bubble that happened under Dubya 'late 2004 extending into 2007' (according to Dubya's working group), BUT on NAFTA, Ronnie and Poppy are in the clear? lol


Will you EVER accept, for ANY reason that like the 1920', 1980's (S&L) AND 2000's it was CONSERVATIVES AND THEIR POLICIES AT FAULT? Was G/S 'repeal' as you call it, a 'neo liberal' or liberal position or one coming primarily from the GOPers and conservative side?

No one said, they were in the clear, whatever the hell that means. What I am saying, is the ultimate responsibility for NAFTA lies on Clinton as he signed it. What are you saying, NAFTA was ok for Clinton to sign because Reagan and Bush supported it as well? You aren't making a coherent argument.

Bush wasn't a conservative, and you don't understand what neo-liberalism is. It is an ideology that transcends party. Dont attack me because you are stupid and don't know what it is.
neoliberalism political and social science Encyclopedia Britannica

I get it Bubba, I just think it's strange you call Clinton a neo liberal, when Reagan AND BOTH BUSHES were.lol


I don't think you are stupid Bubba, dishonest and a POS, yes, stupid. Nah

They all were neo-liberals. But you still haven't explained. Is Clinton correct for supporting free trade because Bush and Reagan did? You still haven't explained this rationale.

IF you remember (AND HONEST) LIBERALS were against 'free trade', and like Iraq war (Dubya's war of choice), 60% of Dems in Congress have voted against EVERY 'free trade agreement since NAFTA!

Yes, BJ Bill was, BY FAR THE BEST conservative Prez since Ike.

EDIT. Looks like Obama will come in second place!

Free trade is a Liberal concept.
Economic liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Traditional Conservatives like Buchanan have opposed free trade and have done so since the days of Hamilton in our Burkean Conservative tradition.

A Democrat President signed it into law. 50% of Democrats voted for NAFTA in the Senate. 73% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it. 40% of Democrats in the House voted for it. 76% of Republicans in the House opposed it. This idea that 60% of Democrats in the Congress opposed it is false.

 

[Dad2three]

I am always amused at the left when they say we vote against are self interest, excuse us we know how to do math. $3 bucks for a pack of Smokes is a lot cheaper then $10 bucks a pack.

Yeah, weird how the poorest generally live in red states too right? And red states collect welfare from blue states? And red states are at the top of low education, STD's, teen preg, porn usage, etc? lol

Tax Foundation Reveals Scant Link Between Taxes And Prosperity

Another day, another weird map from a libertarian group that seems designed to debunk libertarianism. Last time it was strange assertions about freedom, today it's the Tax Foundation explaining why there are no successful businesses in California or New York:


Now it would be a little silly to say that relatively high business tax rates are the cause of California and New York's success as the pillars of America's very successful high-tech, finance, and media industries. But this map seems to provide strong support for the hypothesis that policymakers seeking to create a prosperous local economy shouldn't sweat the business tax rate too much.


State tax climate Tax Foundation shows taxes don t matter.