Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'

[Aoxomoxoa]

"Fuck sake, where is Chauncy the Gardner when you need him?"
LOL!

I think he's in Texas.

Holy shit, I watched Being There on TV only last week. I hadn't seen it for ages and I had forgotten how fucking amazing it is, it's nice to know that other people appreciate it as well.

Being There (1979)@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTYzNTU2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQ4MTAyMQ@@._ V1._SX96_SY140_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMTYyMTYzNTU2OV5BMl 5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQ4MTAyMQ@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX96@@AMEPAR AM@@SY140

[Crashk]

I might have the world's largest orgasm if the GOP came out and said they would cut everything. I would love for them to be the real party of no. I don't think they have the balls to do it but...

I would go along with you if we start with the insane trade agreements like Nafta/Gatt and if the republican party was actually serious about investing money in this country and building a new manufacturing base. From garments to steel. but like you said they dont have the balls, mainly because it's against their own best interests as politicians representing corporations.

[Socrtease]

I agree with stages 1 and 2, which is damning enough.

Stage 3 is retarded, because calling investment capitalism "unproductive" is retarded. I could say "fuck manufacturing," and it would be just as meaningless.

Stage 4 pretends that class warfare is new (its been a bedrock of American politics as long as the Democratic Party has existed, and was a huge part of 19th Century populism), and presumes that something different will happen this time that didn't happen in the past. There's absolutely no validity for anything along this point.

Except at some point class warfare is going to slip it's partisan reins and fly at the wealthy from all different sides. Granted, no one works because they want to stay poor or be reasonably comfortable, but if the working class continues to see their wages fall AND the wealthy keep getting tax breaks that benefit only them, it is going to be all revolt against the monied class in this country.

[Crashk]

Holy shit, I watched Being There on TV only last week. I hadn't seen it for ages and I had forgotten how fucking amazing it is, it's nice to know that other people appreciate it as well.

Being There (1979)

One of my favorites. So typical of bobblehead politicians.

President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

[Threedee]

Except at some point class warfare is going to slip it's partisan reins and fly at the wealthy from all different sides. Granted, no one works because they want to stay poor or be reasonably comfortable, but if the working class continues to see their wages fall AND the wealthy keep getting tax breaks that benefit only them, it is going to be all revolt against the monied class in this country.

And we would all be worse for ware, and deserving of the consequences. How exactly does the working class NOT benefit from tax cuts, btw?

[Socrtease]

And we would all be worse for ware, and deserving of the consequences. How exactly does the working class NOT benefit from tax cuts, btw?

The Bush taxcuts don't help them and add billions to the deficit. That does not help them. Deficits matter. The working class is not seeing their wages improve because the top 3% of the population got a tax cut. Rich people are holding on to their money as tightly as anyone.

[Threedee]

The Bush taxcuts don't help them and add billions to the deficit. That does not help them. Deficits matter. The working class is not seeing their wages improve because the top 3% of the population got a tax cut. Rich people are holding on to their money as tightly as anyone.

Would the working class be better off if we raised its taxes?

[Aoxomoxoa]

Would the working class be better off if we raised its taxes?

No they won't, but that's going to happen anyway. I think that you will have to follow the British economic model sooner or later, probably later. Maybe we should ask for compensation from the US for the disgusting behaviour of US financial institutions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-history.html

[Threedee]

No they won't, but that's going to happen anyway. I think that you will have to follow the British economic model sooner or later, probably later. Maybe we should ask for compensation from the US for the disgusting behaviour of US financial institutions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-history.html

Maybe we should do the same for the disgusting behavior oh UK oil companies.

[Don Quixote]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...omy-2010-08-10

and gwb put the finishing touches on it

[Canceled]

The Bush taxcuts don't help them and add billions to the deficit. That does not help them. Deficits matter. The working class is not seeing their wages improve because the top 3% of the population got a tax cut. Rich people are holding on to their money as tightly as anyone.

The "working class" is not seeing their wages improve because they are fortunate to still have a JOB! We are currently at a real UE rate of about 25%, and there is absolutely NOTHING on the horizon to lead us to believe this is going away anytime soon. We just continue to extend unemployment and welfare, and spending more money on more shit we can't afford.

Now... get unemployment down to around 4%, and suddenly, you have a completely different dynamic. The "working class" then becomes in greater demand, and can leverage employers to pay them more to keep them. If the employer doesn't want to pay more, there are ample jobs out there and others who will pay more, and one way or another, the "working class" improves their income. As it currently stands, the "working class" might actually be forced to take a CUT in pay, just to keep their job!

Rich people are holding on to their money, because they are uncertain about the future, what mandates and fees are going to be imposed on them next, with this anti-capitalist administration. They aren't hiring new people, because it isn't going to be profitable for them to do so, once they have to pay all the mandated costs associated with new employees.

I laugh at the stupidity of Dummycrats who seem to think, raising taxes on the rich is going to somehow teach them a lesson or punish them for success, and return that money to the people who need it most. The reality is, rich people do not have to earn a taxable income! They are set for life, have everything they will ever need, have their kids futures taken care of, and there is absolutely no need for them to make another dime. Raising their taxes has the negative effect of making even more of them retire and move to the Caribbean, taking their wealth completely out of the game.

You can go back and look at this, I have... Every time we have ever reduced the top marginal tax rates, revenues from taxes increased in the following years. The reason? Because lowering taxes on "the rich" enables them to invest and spend, expand and grow, create new jobs and more business, and of course, more profit to be taxed.

[apple0154]

The "working class" is not seeing their wages improve because they are fortunate to still have a JOB! We are currently at a real UE rate of about 25%, and there is absolutely NOTHING on the horizon to lead us to believe this is going away anytime soon. We just continue to extend unemployment and welfare, and spending more money on more shit we can't afford.

Now... get unemployment down to around 4%, and suddenly, you have a completely different dynamic. The "working class" then becomes in greater demand, and can leverage employers to pay them more to keep them. If the employer doesn't want to pay more, there are ample jobs out there and others who will pay more, and one way or another, the "working class" improves their income. As it currently stands, the "working class" might actually be forced to take a CUT in pay, just to keep their job!

Rich people are holding on to their money, because they are uncertain about the future, what mandates and fees are going to be imposed on them next, with this anti-capitalist administration. They aren't hiring new people, because it isn't going to be profitable for them to do so, once they have to pay all the mandated costs associated with new employees.

I laugh at the stupidity of Dummycrats who seem to think, raising taxes on the rich is going to somehow teach them a lesson or punish them for success, and return that money to the people who need it most. The reality is, rich people do not have to earn a taxable income! They are set for life, have everything they will ever need, have their kids futures taken care of, and there is absolutely no need for them to make another dime. Raising their taxes has the negative effect of making even more of them retire and move to the Caribbean, taking their wealth completely out of the game.

You can go back and look at this, I have... Every time we have ever reduced the top marginal tax rates, revenues from taxes increased in the following years. The reason? Because lowering taxes on "the rich" enables them to invest and spend, expand and grow, create new jobs and more business, and of course, more profit to be taxed.

Some folks just don't get it.

To start with unemployment is not a problem. It is a good sign. Try and follow the logic here.

Before the industrial revolution everybody had to work in order to survive. That's why, for example, there were a lot of farmers back then. One farmer could not supply the food necessary for, say, 20 people. He could only dig so much ground and plant so many seeds by hand.

If someone wanted a house the vast majority of people built it themselves because their neighbor was building their own house. People had to work in order to produce enough things in order to live.

As machines and new technologies came available more was produced by less effort. One farmer could grow enough of a vegetable or fruit for 100 people. Factories turned logs into boards to build houses. People didn't have to saw the logs. In short, jobs disappeared and that was good.

So, new ideas and products came on the market. The focus shifted from producing things necessary to survive to producing things for amusement or further simplification. The TV remote was certainly not a necessity but it was developed and sold by people who required those with money to trade their money for the items. The dynamics shifted. The shift resulted in some people producing items in order to survive (sell an item and buy groceries) and others simply looking for things to spend their money on.

As a glut of items entered the market through mass production some people bought cars and TVs and refrigerators and stoves until they didn't require anymore. They had all they needed and they still had money. Even many of the middle class today have those things and they do not require immediately replacing so what does a person who doesn't have money have to sell to the guy who does?

The point is not everyone has to work. That was and is the goal of technological advancement. Why should we insist a citizen of a first world nation, a nation that has abundant food and can build houses in factories and deliver them to a site, a nation that has an abundance of all life's necessities, why should we require a citizen of that country to work at the most menial tasks just so they are able to eat?

We don't lack natural resources. We don't lack factories and the energy necessary to build things. There is no shortage of cars or stoves. If there were shortages people would be building them and selling them.

We are looking at a good thing and calling it a crisis. We have reached the point where everyone does not have to work. That was the goal 200 years ago. We're finally seeing the rewards. The problem is how do we deal with it?

One thing is certain. Having people suffer and do without life's basic necessities is not the way.

[cawacko]

Some folks just don't get it.

To start with unemployment is not a problem. It is a good sign. Try and follow the logic here.

Before the industrial revolution everybody had to work in order to survive. That's why, for example, there were a lot of farmers back then. One farmer could not supply the food necessary for, say, 20 people. He could only dig so much ground and plant so many seeds by hand.

If someone wanted a house the vast majority of people built it themselves because their neighbor was building their own house. People had to work in order to produce enough things in order to live.

As machines and new technologies came available more was produced by less effort. One farmer could grow enough of a vegetable or fruit for 100 people. Factories turned logs into boards to build houses. People didn't have to saw the logs. In short, jobs disappeared and that was good.

So, new ideas and products came on the market. The focus shifted from producing things necessary to survive to producing things for amusement or further simplification. The TV remote was certainly not a necessity but it was developed and sold by people who required those with money to trade their money for the items. The dynamics shifted. The shift resulted in some people producing items in order to survive (sell an item and buy groceries) and others simply looking for things to spend their money on.

As a glut of items entered the market through mass production some people bought cars and TVs and refrigerators and stoves until they didn't require anymore. They had all they needed and they still had money. Even many of the middle class today have those things and they do not require immediately replacing so what does a person who doesn't have money have to sell to the guy who does?

The point is not everyone has to work. That was and is the goal of technological advancement. Why should we insist a citizen of a first world nation, a nation that has abundant food and can build houses in factories and deliver them to a site, a nation that has an abundance of all life's necessities, why should we require a citizen of that country to work at the most menial tasks just so they are able to eat?

We don't lack natural resources. We don't lack factories and the energy necessary to build things. There is no shortage of cars or stoves. If there were shortages people would be building them and selling them.

We are looking at a good thing and calling it a crisis. We have reached the point where everyone does not have to work. That was the goal 200 years ago. We're finally seeing the rewards. The problem is how do we deal with it?

One thing is certain. Having people suffer and do without life's basic necessities is not the way.

No I don't follow you that unemployment is a good thing. I'm technically unemployed and it sucks. Please tell me how it's great.

[Aoxomoxoa]

Maybe we should do the same for the disgusting behavior oh UK oil companies.

How you can possibly equate the near destruction of the world's economies with a few oiled up pelicans and some out of work hookers is just beyond me? I hear Puget Sound has enough of its own problems without worrying about the Gulf of Mexico.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cology01m.html

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rea...omy-2010-08-10

Clinton didn't help by signing NAFTA.