RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction

RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/8/2009 6:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: When you know that his policies are either destined for total failure or will succeed only temporarily and then flush the US as we know it down the drain, it doesnt take "cheering" for total failure, its inevitable one way or the other. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It seems that you think the republicans had the answers...tax breaks, support for small businesses, spending on hard infrastructure projects. Wait a minute, now those aren't good ideas anymore. Oh..I know....just pay down the deficit by a few billion and everything will be great again. Come on, WD, admit it. It isn't that you're praying for failure of the Obama administration. You're praying for it with no conception of what could do a better job. "Tax breaks, support for small business" are fine, I never said they weren't. But when they only partially offset the other burdens that he's putting on business it doesnt work. Spending hard on infrastructure? since when is that supported by conservatives? It was never a good idea if "spending hard" means deficit spending beyond justifiable intergenerational equity considerations.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/8/2009 7:17:03 PM)
quote: "Tax breaks, support for small business" are fine, I never said they weren't. But when they only partially offset the other burdens that he's putting on business it doesnt work. Spending hard on infrastructure? since when is that supported by conservatives? It was never a good idea if "spending hard" means deficit spending beyond justifiable intergenerational equity considerations. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Do try to at least read what I write before huffing, WD. I didn't say "spending hard" on infrastructure projects. I said "spending on hard infrastructure projects". You know, things that the government is supposed to provide like well maintained roads, bridges that don't collapse during rush hour, maybe a national electric grid that isn't a disaster waiting to happen. I don't know about you, but I think that those are kind of good things for the government to spend money on.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/8/2009 7:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales You know, things that the government is supposed to provide like well maintained roads, bridges that don't collapse during rush hour, maybe a national electric grid that isn't a disaster waiting to happen. I don't know about you, but I think that those are kind of good things for the government to spend money on. If you bothered to read what I wrote, then you wouldnt be saying "I dont know about you" because I said what I thought about them very clearly (after my dyslexia re "on hard")

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/8/2009 7:52:40 PM)
quote: If you bothered to read what I wrote, then you wouldnt be saying "I dont know about you" because I said what I thought about them very clearly (after my dyslexia re "on hard") ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ok..let's go one step further. Which do you think is a better use of 70 billion dollars right now? A) spending it on hard infrastructure, support for small business and tax cuts to stimulate job growth or B) reducing the national debt from $11,400,000,000,000 to $11,330,000,000?

Brain -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/8/2009 10:41:28 PM)
Romney: We Need to Put the Brakes on the Stimulus Plan \| Video Cafe Mitt Romney is asked what he thinks the Obama administration needs to do to stimulate the economy and surprise, surprise...he recommends more tax cuts. How'd those tax cuts work out under George W. Bush Mitt? Of course Romney also thinks we need to get rid of the stimulus plan which wasn't big enough in the first place. Let the private sector take care of everything. It will all work out just fine. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/romney-we-need-put-brakes-stimulus-plan quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: When you know that his policies are either destined for total failure or will succeed only temporarily and then flush the US as we know it down the drain, it doesnt take "cheering" for total failure, its inevitable one way or the other. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy It seems that you think the republicans had the answers...tax breaks, support for small businesses, spending on hard infrastructure projects. Wait a minute, now those aren't good ideas anymore. Oh..I know....just pay down the deficit by a few billion and everything will be great again. Come on, WD, admit it. It isn't that you're praying for failure of the Obama administration. You're praying for it with no conception of what could do a better job. "Tax breaks, support for small business" are fine, I never said they weren't. But when they only partially offset the other burdens that he's putting on business it doesnt work. Spending hard on infrastructure? since when is that supported by conservatives? It was never a good idea if "spending hard" means deficit spending beyond justifiable intergenerational equity considerations.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 11:46:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: If you bothered to read what I wrote, then you wouldnt be saying "I dont know about you" because I said what I thought about them very clearly (after my dyslexia re "on hard") ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ok..let's go one step further. Which do you think is a better use of 70 billion dollars right now? A) spending it on hard infrastructure, support for small business and tax cuts to stimulate job growth or B) reducing the national debt from $11,400,000,000,000 to $11,330,000,000? There is a presumption in your question that $70 billion in "support for small business" would have any impact. The real question is whether printing $700 billion in TARP money, tax increases, cap and trade, health care "reform" etc. will stimulate or retard the economy. The answer is obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of economics.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 11:47:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain How'd those tax cuts work out under George W. Bush Mitt? Very well.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain How'd those tax cuts work out under George W. Bush Mitt? Very well. Can you define "well"? I would think an almost total economic collapse as well as two wars fought on credit cards don't really qualify as "well".

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The real question is whether printing $700 billion in TARP money, tax increases, cap and trade, health care "reform" etc. will stimulate or retard the economy. The answer is obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of economics. No....the question is, why is it when Obama does something the republicans have been advocating for a year, do they suddenly choose to decide it's a bad idea. But then again, I think I have a pretty good clue.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The real question is whether printing $700 billion in TARP money, tax increases, cap and trade, health care "reform" etc. will stimulate or retard the economy. The answer is obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of economics. No....the question is, why is it when Obama does something the republicans have been advocating for a year, do they suddenly choose to decide it's a bad idea. But then again, I think I have a pretty good clue. Because the republicans were wrong too, duhhhhh.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain How'd those tax cuts work out under George W. Bush Mitt? Very well. Can you define "well"? I would think an almost total economic collapse as well as two wars fought on credit cards don't really qualify as "well". The "almost total economic collapse" (if such a thing existed to begin with) had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's economic policies and you know it. He sheparded the economy through the Clinton recession and 9/11, maintaining unemployment at levels below the average level of the ballyhooed Clinton years. His tax rate cuts increased tax revenues, as expected, and all of that was accomplished while maintaining historically low interest rates and inflation, despite the costs of war. Sounds pretty damn good to me.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:28:57 PM)
quote: Because the republicans were wrong too, duhhhhh. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course...fortunately they just happened to gain wisdom when Obama said he was going to do what they had been shouting for. Nahh..no agenda of destruction here.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:31:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Because the republicans were wrong too, duhhhhh. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course...fortunately they just happened to gain wisdom when Obama said he was going to do what they had been shouting for. Nahh..no agenda of destruction here. They've gained wisdom? AFAIK the Republicans came out in support of Obama's Afghan policy, once he finally waffled his way to a decision. Sounds like that didnt learn a thing to me.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:33:59 PM)
Well don't lose hope, WD..there's always Palin in '12...that'll fix up the country.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Well don't lose hope, WD..there's always Palin in '12...that'll fix up the country. I see you cant respond so you bring up SP yet again...and to someone who has never defended her no less. FAIL.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Well don't lose hope, WD..there's always Palin in '12...that'll fix up the country. I see you cant respond so you bring up SP yet again...and to someone who has never defended her no less. FAIL. Then I ask you, as I have other conservatives. Who would you consider a viable candidate to put into the White House?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Well don't lose hope, WD..there's always Palin in '12...that'll fix up the country. I see you cant respond so you bring up SP yet again...and to someone who has never defended her no less. FAIL. Then I ask you, as I have other conservatives. Who would you consider a viable candidate to put into the White House? What do you mean by "viable"?

Moonhead -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:46:11 PM)
It's quite depressing to see all of this bollocks about tax cuts being taken seriously. Does any fucker at this point still think that trickle down theory is anything other than a pipe dream?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's quite depressing to see all of this bollocks about tax cuts being taken seriously. Does any fucker at this point still think that trickle down theory is anything other than a pipe dream? Since every tax rate decrease has been followed by greater tax revenues, a lot of people who, unlike you, know what they are taking about.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: The GOP and the Politics of National Destruction (12/9/2009 4:56:19 PM)
quote: What do you mean by "viable"? ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy In this case, someone who would be accepted by the republican party leadership and has a chance in hell of mounting a campaign that could win. For example, Lindon LaRuche (and I am in NO way saying that you support him in any way, he's just an example that came to mind) is not a viable candidate. No matter how someone might agree with him (and there are some who do), it's pretty well established that he's not going to get into office. How's that for viable?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875