Lucky...

Be careful what you wish for I remember having the same attitude in the late seventies, when Ronald "guvment is the problem" Reagan was considering a run for President, after he had totally devastated California state government. I thought his running would ensure that the Democrats would win because Americans couldn't be so stupid as to elect the guy for President. Well, it turned out very badly, indeed. Palin/Beck need to be taken seriously. The strangest things can happen in politics, especially in times like these. That's all really true just as I'm pounding the last nail in the coffin - so easy to do if you use basic logic, but, "There I (you) go again." Other than times like 1860 where the Dems/Whigs fucked everything up so bad that this hate for these was indellible for 52 years, or when the Republican Party led us into the GD, so the Dems won the next 5 in a row or 7 of the next 9 pres elections, anything goes and the improbable can become the probable.

Harding was NOT a Neo-Conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He believed in the USA NOT joining the League of Nations, and generally advocated a policy of America not getting involved with problems of foreign nations. That is the complete OPPOSITE of Neo-conservatism. He was still a conservative, just of a different type. It looks like your mostly right, but that neoconservative is another word/term like fascism and has some ambiguity depending upon who you listen to. This Wiki article states it has been used a lot by different authors in different lights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon [edit] Evolution of neoconservative views [edit] Usage and general views The term has been used before, and its meaning has changed over time. - Writing in The Contemporary Review (London) in 1883, Henry Dunckley used the term to describe factions within the Conservative Party; - James Bryce again uses it in his Modern Democracies (1921) to describe British political history of the 1880s. - The German authoritarians Carl Schmitt, who became professor at the University of Berlin in 1933, and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck were called "neo-conservatives".[45] - In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts." - In the early 1970s, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form. - Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: neo-conservatives had a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; they had a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; they took philosophical ideas and ideologies very seriously.[46] - Political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899–1973) was an important intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism. Strauss notably influenced Allan Bloom, author of the 1987 bestseller Closing of the American Mind. - In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism"[44]: "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms low tolerance for diplomacy readiness to use military force emphasis on US unilateral action disdain for multilateral organizations focus on the Middle East an us verses them mentality". _________________________________________ So it looks like another clusterfuck. I read and I'll try to find it, that neo-cons were labeled as such for their transition during one of their few losses of the WH during the Wilson terms. Their entire value systems changed. At any rate, Harding was the opposite of traditional 1860 - 1912 Republicans, even if the term, "neo-con" is incorrect, that was my point; the Repiblican Party took on a whole new and ugly face after being the saviors of the US all those decades.

Mine is posted for parody, not delivered as fact; there's a difference. The Cato, Heritage are rags that try to pass off as legitimate.

No, the video infers it all Dems taking Freddie and Fannie money. That's dishonest.

http://www.wesh.com/news/21740162/detail.html

Well, we're all here, so what is your conclusion?

No, more like Cato and the Heritage Foundation so many of the neo's like to cite. So apparently you agree then, these RW rags are often BS.

I didn't see any R's named on that link. S it's dishonest too. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html There's a list of all recipients of Freddie/Fannie money; seems like a fair amount of both parties and Indep. So is it fair to say the link you provided is as honest as The Cato Institute? Anyway, the thread title was that RW rags are often blatantly dishonest, not one of, 'are politicians honest?' So that wasn't my point, my point is how blatantly dishonest so many RW rags are.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880 What banished high unemployment was the conscription of 12 million men into the armed forces during World War II. The draft wasn't until late 1940. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment 24.9 to 14.6 by 1940. Then war preparations, manufacturing, etc employed a lot of people. But to say a lot of good hadn't been done absent the draft is purely propaganda. ...he tripled taxes... The Revenue Act of 1932 was signed into law by Hoover 9 months before his term ended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 The Revenue Act of 1932 (June 6, 1932, ch. 209, 47 Stat. 169) raised United States tax rates across the board, with the rate on top incomes rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15 percent. Actually 24% to 63%, but same thing. FDR didn't raise taxes until 1935-36 and then it wasn't as great as Hoover did, 260%, in 1932. I think it wa steh right thing to do by both, but see how the Cato rag blatantly lies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1936 His top tax rate at the peak of the war was 94% from 63% as Hoover did, a 260% increase. 63% to 94% is a 49% increase over a little more than 12 years, hardly triple. One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did. Harding was the first neo-con. His corporate-love and disconcern for the citizen distanced him from Great Republican Presidents like Teddy Roosvelt, just 12 years prior. Harding's neo-con policies seemed great at the time, but his pseudo growth and prosperity was generally only felt by the filthy rich and was short-lived. Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts. He noted that a half-billion dollars in compensation and insurance claims were already being paid to 813,442 veterans, and 107,824 veterans were enrolled in government-sponsored vocational training programs. Current neo-cons in here, this is where the disdain for military personnel started under the guise of patriotism. I hope we get to learn of the Bonus Army and Hoover's response. In 1922, the House passed a veterans' bonus bill 333-70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. The senate passed it 35-17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19— just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers. Right, fuck the vets. When will all neo-cons learn that the Republicna Party isn;t for current or former military personnel? Conspicuously absent was the business-bashing that became a hallmark of FDR's speeches. Absent, too, were New Deal-type big government programs to make it more expensive for employers to hire people, to force prices above market levels, or to promote cartels and monopolies. Absent were worker's rights. The Roaring Twenties were a time of unprecedented prosperity. I would say the 1990's were better, esp considering GWHB/Clinton inherited a total turd, the 1921 economics weren't nearly as bad, the debt wasn't soaring, etc. There was a dramatic expansion of the middle class. You mean the upper class. Women had the vote. The 19th Amendment was passed on August 26, 1920 while Wilson was in office. See how they act as if that was a Republican thing? Patently dishonest. Unfortunately, Harding's stunning success as a depression fighter was overshadowed by the Teapot Dome scandal that engulfed his administration after his death in August 1923. Yea, pitty, Harding was discovered as one of the most dishonest/corrupt presidents in history after his death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome BTW, that land was reconfigured back to the US Gov in a 1927 SCOTUS decision after a bunch of kick-backs via Harding and his cabinet. Since the beginnings of recorded history, government involvement in the economy has led to corruption, and Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall accepted bribes for leases enabling private companies to extract the oil. Right, after Harding set them aside and allowed lease w/o bidding which led to kick-backs. Good thing we have honest corporations like Enron and all the other corrupt mortgage, etc corps to keep the gov straight. There wouldn't have been a scandal if the reserves had been privatized, as more than 250 million acres of government land had been privatized during the previous century. Right, private corporations play by the rules and never go corrupt. Rather than follow the model of FDR— whose policies raised only Americans' spirits— President-Elect Obama ought to consider the model of Warren G. Harding, whose policies raised Americans' standard of living, and lifted the nation itself out of a depression— before it had a chance to become Great. Yea, it was Hoover's tax increases first of all, and it was FDR's implementation of social programs (esp organized labor rights) that raised the standard of living of MC people. The 1920's were FAR better for rich people than they were for the poor. That's only an overview of that BS article. At least they should get the basic facts straight, rather than claim FDR tripled taxes. That's such an easy kill that it's beyond comprehension that they would try to sell it to anyone.

That's a powerful statement. You are so stupid. You are so misinformed. Have you ever had a family member die in your arms? Please shut the fuck up you wasteless peice of life.. Let me work around the PA's to see if I can make sense of this. What I'm saying is that the INCREASED LEVEL OF CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY (fiduciary as opposed to basic duty of care) should render a greater system of care in the HC industry. If we water-down civil liability, we will also reduce/eliminate the duty a doctor/hospital feels when renderring care. OTOH you don't want it to be so severe that doctors/hospitals can't move. I think it's ok the way it is, but that's opinion. I fear a cap of 200k on an lawsuit and then doctors/hospitals/HMO's make a business decision when deciding thinngs like long-term care or expensive operations, esp on older patients. I think it's good to have that civil judge hanging over the heads of doctors/hospitals/HMO's, which is what makes them act in a fiduciary way; AKA more responsibly. So if you sadly had a family member die in your arms, I'm addvocating for you in that I want more responsibility via civil liability. I think you misunderstood me and perhaps don't understand legal language/concepts.

You are so stupid. Please shut the fuck up you wasteless peice of life.. What is it with all the PA's....something in the water?

Um not it's not. I am 30 years old and just bought my first house. I paid cash. I don't have a note. Alright, sample size of 2 that are non-random; I'm convinced . http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/292005_Mortgage_Study.asp Mortgage Study (2005) - Americans Will Carry Mortgage Into Golden Years. Whereas, in 1989, 54 percent of homeowners in the 55 to 64 age cohort were mortgage free, by 1998 that number had declined to 39 percent. I would venture to say your age group has a 5% paid off rate at best, at they are comprised of inheritances and rich kids from rich families.

You didn't comment on the fact that we're near GD times, so worrying about what might become hyperinflation, maybe, could be, is ridiculous. It's like wondering what kind of 20" wheels you will have on your new Escalade when you can't afford a car yet. This is more than cart before the horse logic. And why are you worrying about reducing the cost of things when we are in a major financial emergency. I mean, would you tell your wife you need to save money and not buy teh kids medications for their cancer? When you're in emergency times, you do WHATEVER you have to, unlesss you're the Republican Party of course, then you just spend willy-nilly and blame teh Dems, even tho virtually all the debt is the very well-documented doing of the right. Right, thinking like your heroes; tax cuts my friends. Under Clinton the USD went from 1 USD = 1.28 CAD, to, 1 USD = 1.55 CAD. Then under your hero we fell below them for a stretch, what brough the USD back up to about 1 USD = 1.20 CAD was the market crash where people yanked out of the market and threw in bonds. Now that the market is flying, investors are yanking out of bonds and throwing into the market, we are now 1 USD = 1.05 CAD. Cut spending and raising taxes is the best way to go for a strong dollar; tax cuts my friends and waste 100's of billions on the military in time of peace is the way to trash your country. And yet you think your way is valid, other's are wrong. Just bizzare logic. I'll ask again: SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS? I ask, what would you do? If your feelings are hurt about me thinking it's Bush's fault, omit that part. What would you do to fix the mess Obama inherited? Not a tough question, straight forward; answer it. BTW, what I asked was not an argument, it was a question; there is a difference as it wasn't rhetorical. Those were the 3 choices, you just gave sarcastic commentary, you didn't state what you would do. You inferred you would, "let the market fix itself" as Hoover did, but you didn't state as much; IS THAT YOUR SELECTION OF THE 3? It's so unusual that Republicans don't nail down what they would do. BTW, bad link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321 We've been in a recession since mid-late 2007, ALL of the numbers/indicators were looking far worse and declining and you want Obama to just let the market fix itself? You do realize Hoover tried the same approach and we don't know how many died, probably at least a million, many say several million. See. recessions/depressions are all diff animals, just like every skydive is its own animal. Some recessions drag in, some are caused by a sharp event that throws us in immediately. Some are caused by the stock market, some by labor, some by trade, etc; a million diff reasons why we get into them, but to claim a lassiz faire approach is just apathy at its worst. The economy started to grow, though it had not yet completed all the adjustments in shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Factors identified as potentially contributing to the downturn include: returning troops which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, changes in fiscal and monetary policy, and changes in price expectations. This post WWI recession was a tweek where the workforce was shifting, I think a simlar event occcurred at the end of WWII and we had small recessions. What we're in now, at Jan 2009, was a total meltdown of the banks, auto industry, even acft have had several orders cancelled. Our biggest exports were tanking, our entire monetary system in failure and you want to LET THE MARKET FIX ITSELF, as if a 7-month post WWI recession is the same as this mess. I think that's another way of saying, "I don't give a fuck." Now I realize the 1920 recession is classified differently than the post WWI brief recession, but there is obvioulsy a connect. Whenever a war ends there is often an adjustment period where we have excess war funds, a lot of people from teh military in the private sector looking for work and many other events that don't occur in peacetime. SO AGAIN, MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR, DO YOU WANT TO DO NOTHING WITH TJHIS CURRENT RECESSION? ________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_recessions So there have been 47 recessions and your argument is that 1, the one in 1920 was a hands off recession and you consider that statistically significant? Comparing early 20th century recessions to 19th century recessions here is an exerpt defining those: In the 19th century, recessions frequently coincided with financial crises. There was no financial crisis in 1920, in fact, just the opposite; excess war funds. So to say that in a time of excess funds then and a time of perhaps the worst or second worst financial meltdown and the recovey/response s/b teh same, well, that is very Reaganesque of you. And this: Because of the great changes in the economy over the centuries, it is difficult to compare the severity of modern recessions to early recessions. So to say the 1920 recession recovery s/b the same as the 2007 recession is just nuts. Furthermore, as you going to say Hoover doing just what they did in 1920 was a good thing? I don't expect an answer to that. Yes, he took a tough stance and is trying to recover rather than ignore, which seems to be popular, esp amongst your crowd. Is he receiving criticism for the 787B? Yes. Would it have been more politically correct and say he has faith in the American market and let it fix itself? Yes. So he isn't doing the political thing. I wrote: The result is a GDP that is very healthy and a market that is way ahead of schedule. Unemployment is yet to come. Is that wrong? Laugh as you may, but please address the comment; is the GDP doing well? Is teh market ahead of recovery? Does the unemp rate need fixing? What is laughable and what is incorrect? I don't expect you to answer. In response to me saying: I'm not a fan of C4C either, but that encompassed 3/787th of the stimulus cash, so is that your best argument? I'm thinking a mainline arg would be to focus on where a larger amount of cash went. Again, 3/787th is less statistically significant than 1/47th of all recessions, yet you bypass the point. Let's talk about where most of the stimulus went, that which has been spent, and see what the benefits or not have been. I don't expecct you to do so. But you don't want to comment on the GHWB/Clinton prescription of raising taxes and cutting spending, leading to the stretch of economic growth, just protect baby Bush. I wrote: Planners? Are you talking congess and the WH? If you look at the 'planners' since 1980, when things started going awry, the, uh, planners Reagan and GWB were the real problem, planners GHWB and Clinton the cure. Come on, tell me how Reaganomics worked out. Then Reaganomics II, AKA GWB; how'd that work out? I don't think any system in history has been pure, I have said this many times. We are predominantly Capitalistic and it isn't working well; time for a change. Can you bust on Communism when they are our largest creditor? Of course they are so successful in part due to their oppression of their people, but Socialistic countries aren't doing as bad as we are and they provide from a great social structure to true cradle-to-grave, yet they aren't nearly as bad as us. Where's the money going? To the rich? To the overblown military? Sure not going to the people; sounds like Communism from a diffferent slant to me.

First, let me say . This is more futility in arguments. I think the AMA would laugh at this for days. Firstly, preventative medicine is neccessary and your plan doesn't provide for that. Secondly, you can't go have a pain checked out if you have no insurance, you have to wait until it becomes debilitating, which by then it may be too late. Say with a weakening appendix, cancer onset, etc. And by then, it may have aggravated so much they can't save a person. As for your safety analogy to the Mercedes. That would be logical if the compassionate party (not the R's for clarity) wanted everyone to have top-notch HC. But we don't, we want everyone to have Chevy Chevette coverage, so your analogy is busted. To think basic HC is a luxury or not neccessary is just bizzare on a world standard.

I depend on you to enlighten me....to show me the errors of my ways Here's one right here: First, let me say . This is more futility in arguments. I think the AMA would laugh at this for days. Firstly, preventative medicine is neccessary and your plan doesn't provide for that. Secondly, you can't go have a pain checked out if you have no insurance, you have to wait until it becomes debilitating, which by then it may be too late. Say with a weakening appendix, cancer onset, etc. And by then, it may have aggravated so much they can't save a person. As for your safety analogy to the Mercedes. That would be logical if the compassionate party (not the R's for clarity) wanted everyone to have top-notch HC. But we don't, we want everyone to have Chevy Chevette coverage, so your analogy is busted. To think basic HC is a luxury or not neccessary is just bizzare on a world standard.

Yes, for a 1-term vet I have full vet benefots. Not as a lifer. I'm not sure what I can get with teh VA as a 1-term vet, but I think it's sketchy, they don't cover everything and if you make toomuch they cut you. I briefly checked it once. With all the cuts, they're even talking about limiting or taxing/charging lifers for their medical. I think I heard there was a moratorium, probably under that humanitarian GHWB, but no, I haven't checked it. Again, this HC isn't about me, it's the nation. As well, they could limit or exclude 1-termers anyway, so to hang my hat on vet HC is not wise. This problem needs to be fixed regardless of me, unless a person is a Republican and feels having a military 8 times that of #2 and being the most indebted nation in the world because of it is more important.

Yes, likely. At least hopefully insurance costs won't increase 15% a year as they are now. I must be fortunate, mine only increased 12%. Mine didn't go up at all, I must be really fortunate ... of course the coverage sucks; none.

That's funny right there! A real knee-slapper.

I'll address the rest in a minute, BUT STOP THE PA's.

Most of us already have ACCESS to HC. Getting in my pocket to subsidize 13% of the population doesn't work for me. Paying my share for the job of securing our nation's interests...not a problem. Oh, so exactly who is attacking us? Who is threatening us? I see, no one.

Then why do you stay?

Some people seem to INCORRECTLY assume that "public option" means the ONLY option. THIS IS FALSE, and therefore the poll is bogus as there is not a single option which "every other American" would use. There are and going to be multiple options, and people will choose between them depending on their priorities. As with everything else in DC the public option might start out small... Like the military? I just don't hear ya bitchin about that. I've never had a problem with a big military machine. I think it's one of the most basic things the Constitution provides for us. Right, you have no problem going trillions in debt for an overblown military, yet cry about 1T over a decade so all Americans can have HC. Guess why your party is sitting, watching real politicians?

Hmmm, interesting. Hey, can you tell me why Christmas is celebrated on December 25th? Cause that's when the stores close after selling presents for a month. The stores decide when XMas is.

OK, so we have near Great Depression settings and you worry about hyperinflation. Isn't that like worrying about the paintjob on your car that you're gonna buy in 10 years? Don't we have to fix the current mess before we focus on future issues? Again, you reinforce my point that all you have are criticisms of how fucked it is; we know how fucked it is thx to your party. SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS? Oh, the one passed and implemented by your guy? Again, all criticism, no solution. Here's the solitions: 1) Have the gov become the bank and lend money for houses, cars, etc. 2) Load the current and failing banks full of cash to resume lending 3) Just let the system fix itself as they did in 1929-32 and watch 100's of thousands / millions die. So tell me, which would you choose? I don't expect an answer, just more criticisms. See, the president took the tough stance and actually addressed these issues, made a decision and acted. The result is a GDP that is very healthy and a market that is way ahead of schedule. Unemployment is yet to come. I'm not a fan of C4C either, but that encompassed 3/787th of the stimulus cash, so is that your best argument? I'm thinking a mainline arg would be to focus on where a larger amount of cash went. Oh, how's that? How did it damage the US job situation? The job-loss freefall was already in the works. Furthermore, tarriffs on imports won't work since your party has hammered us so deep that we are at the mercy of foreign lenders. Obama tried placing a tarriff of Chinese tires, the backlash was bad, as they are our largest holder of debt, thx to Reagan/GWB. FINE TUNING? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME. 4 of 5 Q's GDP were negative and you want a little tweek? Hoover was your hero, huh? It's a shame Mr. Tax cuts my friends wasn't elected so we could watch 2-3 years of fine tuning as riots broke out and robbery/murders were commonplace, then the huge tax increases and we wouldn;t have to hear from the brilliance of the RW for the rest of my life. Real shame. Hoover realized he fucked up, raised taxes 260%; apparently you're too smart to learn from history. Planners? Are you talking congess and the WH? If you look at the 'planners' since 1980, when things started going awry, the, uh, planners Reagan and GWB were the real problem, planners GHWB and Clinton the cure. Then explain how Socialist and some Communist countries are kicking our asses fiscally if we're so great, they so horrible. You can only chant this horseshit about American Capitalism being so great, and then they repo the big screen and Beemer and you have to admit it sucks. Again, it's Jan 09 and you've just been sworn in as pres, with the economic conditions we had, what exactly and specifically would you do and why? Again, I won't wait for an answer.

Yeah ... Cheny is not stupid. Dick! Absolutely, he's the evildoer who drove dipshit for his 1st term, part of his second. That's why they coined the term, "The Cheny Presidency." He really ran GWB but the rub was the full pardon of Libby, which was the basis of his book.