Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 99
  1. #51
    RIP
    blackgang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    08-07-2010 @ 08:33 PM
    Location
    Phetchabun city
    Posts
    15,471
    Who is Dr Larry J. Tracy he wrote an article ... on Yedda - People. Sharing. Knowledge.
    Here Sabangas, but with your limited IQ, I can see why you don't want this up.
    Who is sucking on who??
    THE FROG THEORY
    By: Dr. Larry J. Tracy
    If you drop a frog in boiling water he will leap right out. If you slowly heat the water he will be content until it's too late to get out. That is exactly how history works. It moves slowly and we never really see any danger until it's too late.
    Remember how suppressed workers were before unions came along? The unions leveled the playing field. Unfortunately, over a long period of time the pendulum swung too far. Slowly, businesses and factories closed and jobs left the country. We were comfortable and didn't see the change coming. We blamed everyone except ourselves for what happened. We weren't alert to how slow things change over time.
    World War II, and the Korean War, demonstrated how powerful a united nation could be. Our nation, and our families, were united. The father was the head of the family and the President was the head of the nation. Both were highly respected. We were content and happy.
    We were good at fighting a hot war but we were unprepared to fight a cold war with the communists in the 50's. They knew they couldn't change us but they didn't care. Their philosophy was to wait it out and capture the minds of our children. They loaded our colleges with many of their professors and waited. It didn't take long to see the results.
    The 60's ushered in the radicals, drug culture, student protesters, and the Vietnam War. The aim of the cold war was to divide and conquer. They divided our families and the nation. The secret to defeating a polite and respectful people is to scream. The louder and longer you scream the better your chance of winning. Radicals are masters at this form of attack. They know if you constantly scream and repeat a lie it will eventually become the truth.
    The media, and Hollywood, hammered us with hate America themes and stories. Our service men, and women, were jeered, cursed, and spit on. Even the people, who later wanted to become their President, thrashed them. We lost our first War in history. There was no hero's homecoming for our fighting men and women.
    The Reverend King, who was raised in the old school, peacefully changed the race issue and united the people. When he died the new breed of leaders like the Jesse Jacksons, Lewis Farakons, Al Sharptons, and Rev. Wrights put a lid on his efforts and turned racism into a money making machine.
    Corporations were green-mailed by threats of protests, product boycotts, or endless lawsuits. Every issue, large or small, became a race issue. The public recoiled in fear of being called a racist. Their voices were silenced because one word could cost you a career, get you fired, or get you sued.
    Even politicians buckled under to the pressure. The Florida legislature issued a formal apology for having slavery 200 years ago. They were thanked by being asked for compensation. There is no end in sight for this kind of nonsense. America didn't capture slaves and bring them to America . Their own people sold them to slave traders from several nations. This knowledge doesn't stop the screamers. History is what it is and you can't change it. There have been many tragic events in history. You acknowledge them and move on.
    They divided our nation into two separate Americas. We now have Americans, and African-Americans, although Africa has nothing to do with being an American. You can be one or the other but not both. You are what you were born to be. You do not subordinate our country to any foreign nation. It's equivalent to flying the African flag above the Stars and Stripes. If you hyphenate two countries America always comes first.
    This election year could be the turning point in our history because the frog theory has come into play. It's time to step back and look at how the country has slowly changed since the cold war started. Don't get caught up in all the hype.
    George McGovern was the first Presidential candidate to test the waters with college students. The Clinton s' played a big role in his campaign. It was the worst campaign ever run. He was crushed in the election.
    Step two was to infiltrate all the information vehicles such as radio, newspapers, magazines, TV and movies. They were quite successful at that. Jimmy Carter was the first President to demonstrate the leadership skills of the far left. Weak military, high taxes, runaway inflation, 19% mortgage rates, and plain incompetence ended his career in Washington. Iran, a small country at the time, took American hostages and kicked sand in our face. By negotiating from weakness Carter could not get the hostages released.
    The big benefit of the Carter years is that they were followed by the Reagan years. The nation got a clear look at the difference between a weak nation and a strong nation. Every student should know this difference. When Ronald Reagan took over the hostages were quickly released, taxes were lowered, inflation dropped, mortgage rates dropped, and the military was strengthened. Russia quickly waved the white flag and waited for another Democrat term.
    Clinton took over Carters uncompleted social programs. He weakened the military and tried to pass large government programs. An Intern derailed his Presidency. While he was tied up with his personal problems his lawyers ran the country. He passed up three opportunities to take out Osama Bin Laden. This eventually cost us the loss of our Twin Towers, thousands of American lives, and got us involved in a war with Iraq.
    By the end of his term the left had captured a large share of the media and it flexed its muscle in 2000. The hate Bush campaign got off to a roaring start. The brainwashing theory of repeating the same story over and over again was launched.
    There were endless stories about our evil nation and its President. Top-secret plans were leaked to the press and printed for the entire world to see. Hollywood cranked out documentaries about the evil Bush administration and our evil military. They laid the groundwork for the next election. The ACLU flooded the courts with lawsuits and the Democrat party became a law firm. Almost every incumbent, or his or her spouse, is a lawyer.
    They now have the perfect candidate because they can squash criticism by playing the race card. If you don't like Obama, or criticize him, you are a racist. They can hide his inexperience and background by turning him into a rock star and singing change and hope. They don't tell us what kind of change, or how it will be done, only that you should hope for the best. By keeping the hype going they don't have to put anything of substance on the table.
    The only thing we really know about Obama is that his wife has never been proud to be an American. They want us to believe that his liberal college professors, Rev. Pfleger, his ties to radicals Bill Ayer and Lewis Farakon, and listening to the Rev. Wright's hate talks for 20 years, had no influence on his thinking. If they didn't, then who did? He wasn't in business and didn't see fit to serve his country. These people launched his political career and their organizations received earmarks in return for their campaign donations and political help. They must have had some influence. Rev. Wright's church received over $15 million. That's only one small local church. Think on a national scale.
    The change being promoted is a change back to the Carter years. It started in 1996 when the lawyer party took over. There have been endless lawsuits and investigations in retaliation for the Clinton years. It keeps the lawyers busy but does nothing for the economy. The economy has been in a downward spiral since they took over.
    Returning to the Carter years of high taxes, high inflation, and a weak military is not the change we are looking for. We cannot cower to a bunch of crazies whose only goal in life is to kill us.
    The old sages (over 50) will have to play a big role in this election. The young people simply don't know what the aged know. The advantage of aging is the knowledge you accumulated. You know what United States means. You know what the seldom-heard word respect means. You know how wonderful freedom and independence is. You know the difference between a strong and a weak nation; and you know what it takes to keep it strong. You know history because you have lived it.
    Although the old guard is dying off, and getting too tired to fight, they have to muster one more charge. If they don't, our children, and grandchildren, will never know the joy and freedom that is the bedrock of our country. The heat is slowly being turned up and the water is getting hot. The old frogs better start jumping before it's too late.

  2. #52
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Why thank you Blackgang! No don't forget now, y'hear.

  3. #53
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
    What about those ghetto folks and their kids who torch cars every night.
    got a link?
    where's yours for saying all fed fiscal rev goes to pay down debt?
    I'd also like to see those "healthy" stats for France. Obviously, they exclude the ghetto muslims and African immigrants.

  4. #54
    I'm in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    12-06-2021 @ 11:13 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    Quote Originally Posted by blackgang
    Here Sabangas, but with your limited IQ, I can see why you don't want this up.
    Who is sucking on who??

  5. #55
    Thailand Expat
    GooMaiRoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    03-07-2023 @ 08:41 AM
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon View Post
    What does "healthier" bodies have to do with bladdy taxes and the socialist state, Ant? And healthier than who? Veering away from the issue again. What about those ghetto folks and their kids who torch cars every night. Are they healthier and supported by the state?
    The original post was intended to discuss a recent McCain ad that associated wealthy, white, Hollywood degenerates with Barack Obama. I was simply curious if anyone besides the Republican propaganda machine could logically tie Obama to Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. I also wondered if the ad might be hypocritical, given John McCain's personal history with his wives. That's all. The issue of the black underclass and welfare statism is an important one, but it seems to be veering away from the original issue. I'm not sure what black ghetto folk have to do with white multi-millionaire celebrities Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton.

  6. #56
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    ^ Brain dead issues?

  7. #57
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    13-09-2019 @ 04:18 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,704
    Quote Originally Posted by britmaveric View Post
    Good ad, shows Osama has no substance, same as Britney/Paris. All image no substance.
    Right on.
    Shame the left-wing loonies can't handle it, eh...

  8. #58
    I am in Jail
    attaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2013 @ 11:30 AM
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by britmaveric
    I said the candidate has nought to say - never says anything but change. The other candidate least spells out his vision of the future in concrete ways compared to just lofty/dreamy ideals and empty rhetoric.
    Interesting take away you have here. The Iraq war, one example of a major issue where Obama has certainly laid out his plans in a far more "concrete" way McCain.

    If I may summarise:

    Obama - I will withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 to 18 months.

    McCain - I will keep troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve "victory". "Could be 100 years"

    Agree or disagree with their policies, IMO Obama's position is very "concrete".
    We both know McCain meant troops might stay just has they have in Germany and Japan. Obama plans to leave troops in the country too, same as McCain. We aren't leaving in 16 months. We aren't leaving. It would be irresponsible to not consider the consequences of leaving. Leaving and coping with the resulting mess would be pragmatism in the extreme to the point of being idiotic or insane.



    The SOB looks like Malcom X.

    To be fair to Obama he said he might stay in the form of stationing troops nearby for emergency responses. How stupid is that? Obama is willing to re invade Iraq?

  9. #59
    Thailand Expat
    Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    09-05-2009 @ 08:11 PM
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,284
    I have actually been quite disappointed with both campaigns and the lack of substance being presented by either candidate, and especially disappointed more recently with the McCain campaign for what I think are unnecessary attack type tactics. This ad is an example of what McCain said he would not do, and I expected more from him.

    Not that I did not expect this type of campaign ad, but I expected them to come from 527 groups and the such and not directly from the individual candidates.

    I am also a bit sick of hearing McCain even mention Obama during any of his speeches, interviews, or other campaign stumps. Not that Obama does not talk negatively about McCain as he certainly does, and if I hear one more time out of Obama or his supports how McCain would basically be another term for Bush I think I’ll puke. But I did not expect this level of what I consider negative campaigning from McCain.

    What disappoints me most out of each are McCain turning more and more negative, and Obama’s unwillingness to hold debates at this stage.

    That being said McCain has crept up in some of the more recent polls so maybe some of the posts in this thread are giving the public more credit than they deserve for being about to see over/around the negative campaigning. The sad thing is that if McCain is able to hold on to his gains, and especially if the gains increase, we can only expect more and more negative campaigning. In the primaries when Hillary went negative it tended to backfire, and she would back off the negative. Right now the negative seems to have worked (maybe too early to tell) for McCain and as such it will probably only get worse.

    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg

  10. #60
    I don't know barbaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    on pacific ocean, south america
    Posts
    21,406
    I agree bugs, both campaigns lack substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bugs View Post
    ....and especially disappointed more recently with the McCain campaign for what I think are unnecessary attack type tactics. This ad is an example of what McCain said he would not do, and I expected more from him.

    Not that I did not expect this type of campaign ad, but I expected them to come from 527 groups and the such and not directly from the individual candidates.

    I am also a bit sick of hearing McCain even mention Obama during any of his speeches, interviews, or other campaign stumps. Not that Obama does not talk negatively about McCain as he certainly does, and if I hear one more time out of Obama or his supports how McCain would basically be another term for Bush I think I’ll puke. But I did not expect this level of what I consider negative campaigning from McCain.

    What disappoints me most out of each are McCain turning more and more negative....


    I agree and believe McCain and his campaign managers are going for everything they can. Yes, I thought an ad about Britney and Paris would be from a 527.

    I suppose McCain cannot keep talking about tax cuts and the surge 24/7.

    The "celebrity" add a false comparison, and very childish.

    I am 90% tuned out of this election. Honestly, I've had positive impressions of McCain as a whole because he doesn't pigeon-hole himself to the party line. But I'm losing respect for him, very quickly.
    ............

  11. #61
    Thailand Expat
    Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    09-05-2009 @ 08:11 PM
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    This sensible party has managed, in less than 8 short years, to bring the US economy (business) to it's knees and alienate most of it's allies through it's lack of judgment and foresight. Come on Jettie, take off the partisan blinders, look around you and tell me how wonderful things are in the US under the GWB Republican administration.
    Come now Norty – I think you might be plastering the current administration with a bit more blame than they deserve. Not that they are blameless, as they certainly are the one’s holding the reigns. But the blue team has been in control of congress going on two years now and nothing of substance has come out of those hollowed halls to help the US buck up either.

    Additionally I don’t think that the current economic situation would have been avoided had the blue team been in charge. The one major exception being the Iraq war and the effects of that war on the US economy – which certainly has been negative.

    IMHO the major factors driving the rather problematic US economy are high oil/energy prices, and the current housing/financial market mess. Neither of which did anyone (blue or red team) have sufficient foresight to prevent.

    I’ll give Clinton credit for some of the environmental moves that he made (many of which unfortunately where undone by Bush in his first four years), but he did squat in regard to effective programs to move the US towards more alternative energy sources, or decrease US need for foreign oil/ increase US supply of oil. Probably the easiest way to do anything along those lines would have been to increase (even slightly) the US CAFE standards, and even though Billy-bob had eight years in control not was done along those lines either.

    Granted the housing market was no were near the tipping point when Billy-bob left office, so expecting him to have done anything to prevent the current mess is a bit of a stretch. But it’s not like the rest of the blue team were clamoring with ideas/ measures to be put into place to prevent such a melt down from happening.

    And as for foreign policy it has been decades since any US president has effectively managed US interests in combination with our global image. And pretty much since the end of the cold war I don’t think any president has found a proper balance in regard to how to best utilize the current US position in the world.

    Not to speak for jetty, but I don’t think I wear blinders and the businesses that I am associated with in the US have gotten stronger, and stronger under the Bush administration. Not due to any influence by Bush’s policies, but due to their own abilities to utilize the resources they have available in the ever-changing world economic environment. Bush did nothing specific to help them, but he certainly has done nothing to negatively effect their ability to do business (with the possible exception of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which while it has certainly had a negative impact in regard to the cost of compliance, I think/hope it will have a total positive effect on the stability of the long term economy as a whole). And I would expect similar type of legislation to be passed following the mortgage market melt-down, and associated financial market morass to hopefully avoid a similar situation from happening in the future.

    Again I ain’t excusing blame from the current administration as they did a piss poor job on many fronts. And as has become typical of the red team when they gain power, they do tend to reign in taxes, but tend not to be able to control their own desire to spend, spend, spend.

  12. #62
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Whoever wins the next election, it is going to take a long time to unravel the systemic financial damage caused to the USA by the Bush administrations reckless financial policies.

    Nobody wants to hear 'more tax' but realistically, what choice is there? And why should this fall inordinately on the Middle Classes, again? The Rich got a damn generous tax break under the Bush administration, which then proceeded to spend profligately having reduced it's revenue base, and now has a record deficit. The asset price bubble encouraged by artificially low interest rates combined with exceedingly generous tax tretment of investment gains (again, favouring the wealthy) has now imploded, causing enormous damage to the US financial system and economy. This is worse than the 'third world debt' crisis- this is probably the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    These are the facts that face the next Presidential administration, whoever it is. McCains syrupy talk of further tax cuts, or gas tax holidays, is ludicrous- unless the US Federal government slashes expenditure. Similarly, Obamas syrup has to be funded, either by increased taxes, cutting other government expenditure or both. Additionally, you have the further requirement that the US government reduce debt. At the end of the Clinton administration, the USA was the worlds largest creditor. Now it is the worlds largest Debtor- by far.

    It's up to you whether you can justify a further Republican term, but as I said these are the facts that face the next President, and they are urgent. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and enormous further damage will be caused that could permanently reduce the financial status of the USA, and the USD if the next Presidential administration takes an attitude of Denial to the current financial crisis.

    Unfortunately, given the fact that people want 'Good news' and 'Sweeteners' in electoral campaigning, I am disappointed that neither Presidential candidate is giving these critical issues the attention that they deserve. At least Obama does not deny that tax revenue will have to be raised, no doubt I will be accused of being Partisan for pointing that out.

  13. #63
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,562
    This article just about sums it up I reckon:

    McCain's anti-Obama ads risk making Republican look like a scold

    Senator John McCain wants the presidential campaign to be about Senator Barack Obama - that's why he talks about him so much.

    To that end, McCain is helping to frame a not-so-flattering portrait of Obama for voters. His ads have become increasingly tough; a third of his commercials portray Obama negatively, a new study has concluded.

    Three months before election day, McCain's strategy raises this question: Will voters vote for the scold?

    A new ad launched yesterday suggests Obama is nothing more than a lightweight celebrity.

    Images of him speaking to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin last week are interspersed with shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. An announcer intones: "He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But, is he ready to lead?"

    No doubt Obama has fame. He fills political venues with people. He breaks fundraising records with a massive donor base. He does not have a name-recognition problem.

    But Obama himself concedes that his challenge is getting voters to see him as President. "It's a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama," he said yesterday.
    But McCain can't compete with his Democratic rival on popularity.
    Instead, the Republican contender is working on sowing doubts about his opponent: that Obama is not tested, not ready to lead and too out of touch with the public.

    "The Obama campaign does a wonderful job of presenting their candidate in the most popular light that they can get, and they do a very good job at it," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters.

    "I'm going to let the American public decide what is negative and what is not negative. But I'm going to do everything in my power to protect my candidate and to define the race in terms that I think are appropriate."

    In public, McCain's criticism of Obama is not as sharp: "Senator Obama is an impressive speaker, and the beauty of his words have attracted many people, especially among the young, to his campaign," he said.

    "I applaud his success. All Americans should be proud of his accomplishments. My concern with Senator Obama is with issues big and small - what he says and what he does are often two different things."

    For his part, Obama has managed to keep his hands cleaner on negative ads, though he has counter-punched.

    Some Republicans welcomed McCain's confrontational strategy.
    But in striking an aggressive pose, McCain is in danger of letting the caricature of an angry, petulant candidate take seed - not so much because he is one, but because it stands in stark contrast to Obama's carefully cultivated, well, celebrity, and McCain's own promises to run a respectful campaign.

    "The campaign is making him seem angrier than he is and therefore it's a disservice to him," said former McCain strategist John Weaver.
    Obama is projecting confidence, but he is not ready to ignore McCain.
    In back-to-back days, he has retaliated with ads attacking McCain.

    But Obama also offered a personal rejoinder this week.
    "He doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about me does he?" he said, campaigning in Missouri. "You need to ask John McCain what he's for not just what he's against."

    - AP
    McCain's anti-Obama ads risk making Republican look like a scold - 01 Aug 2008 - NZ Herald: World / International News

  14. #64
    punk douche bag
    ChiangMai noon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    o dan y bryn
    Posts
    29,256
    ^
    and somehow Brit would read that and say..... "see, i told you, Obama lacks substance"

  15. #65
    I am in Jail
    Mr Earl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    23-08-2021 @ 06:47 PM
    Location
    In the Jungle of Love
    Posts
    14,771
    Quote Originally Posted by AntRobertson View Post
    This article just about sums it up I reckon:
    Yep the NZ Herald's got it right. They know American politics by jeezus

  16. #66
    Thailand Expat
    Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    09-05-2009 @ 08:11 PM
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Whoever wins the next election, it is going to take a long time to unravel the systemic financial damage caused to the USA by the Bush administrations reckless financial policies.

    Nobody wants to hear 'more tax' but realistically, what choice is there? And why should this fall inordinately on the Middle Classes, again? The Rich got a damn generous tax break under the Bush administration, which then proceeded to spend profligately having reduced it's revenue base, and now has a record deficit. The asset price bubble encouraged by artificially low interest rates combined with exceedingly generous tax tretment of investment gains (again, favouring the wealthy) has now imploded, causing enormous damage to the US financial system and economy. This is worse than the 'third world debt' crisis- this is probably the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    These are the facts that face the next Presidential administration, whoever it is. McCains syrupy talk of further tax cuts, or gas tax holidays, is ludicrous- unless the US Federal government slashes expenditure. Similarly, Obamas syrup has to be funded, either by increased taxes, cutting other government expenditure or both. Additionally, you have the further requirement that the US government reduce debt. At the end of the Clinton administration, the USA was the worlds largest creditor. Now it is the worlds largest Debtor- by far.

    It's up to you whether you can justify a further Republican term, but as I said these are the facts that face the next President, and they are urgent. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and enormous further damage will be caused that could permanently reduce the financial status of the USA, and the USD if the next Presidential administration takes an attitude of Denial to the current financial crisis.

    Unfortunately, given the fact that people want 'Good news' and 'Sweeteners' in electoral campaigning, I am disappointed that neither Presidential candidate is giving these critical issues the attention that they deserve. At least Obama does not deny that tax revenue will have to be raised, no doubt I will be accused of being Partisan for pointing that out.
    Besides the tax cuts what other ground shaking economic policies did Bush implement that you consider reckless? And what has the current congress done over the past two year to try and correct those reckless policies?

    Working up a bit of a reply to the rest.

  17. #67
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    22-11-2011 @ 08:27 AM
    Location
    Christian Country
    Posts
    15,017
    Either way it's scary. Gotta go with the party now, not the candidate. But which party can fix the mess?

  18. #68
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    ^ If you honestly can tell me Bugs with a straight face that you take the worlds largest Creditor nation, give it a period of eight years under one Government and-

    1- It is now far and away the worlds biggest debtor nation.
    2- it has the largest government deficit, ever
    3- it's currency has plummeted in value
    4- it's reserve bank (the Fed) now accepts sub prime securities at Face value as collateral, for the first time in the nations history
    5- the underwriter of 60% of the nations mortgages is being kept alive by the US Treasury and Fed
    6- an unspecified number of banks are also being kept solvent and trading by the Fed unjecting liquidity
    7- much of that world record debt is owed to foreigners
    8- the mortgage and housing market has collapsed, banks are unable to lend, a record number of mortgages are in default
    9- for most of that administrations term, the national trade deficit has been growing, to new record highs

    If you can tell me that has nothing to do with inept government economic policy, then enjoy your boat trip along Denial. You will vote GOP, anyway.

  19. #69
    Thailand Expat
    Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    09-05-2009 @ 08:11 PM
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    ^ If you honestly can tell me Bugs with a straight face that you take the worlds largest Creditor nation, give it a period of eight years under one Government and-

    1- It is now far and away the worlds biggest debtor nation.
    2- it has the largest government deficit, ever
    3- it's currency has plummeted in value
    4- it's reserve bank (the Fed) now accepts sub prime securities at Face value as collateral, for the first time in the nations history
    5- the underwriter of 60% of the nations mortgages is being kept alive by the US Treasury and Fed
    6- an unspecified number of banks are also being kept solvent and trading by the Fed unjecting liquidity
    7- much of that world record debt is owed to foreigners
    8- the mortgage and housing market has collapsed, banks are unable to lend, a record number of mortgages are in default
    9- for most of that administrations term, the national trade deficit has been growing, to new record highs

    If you can tell me that has nothing to do with inept government economic policy, then enjoy your boat trip along Denial. You will vote GOP, anyway.
    I certainly won't say it has nothing to do with policy. But it also has to do with record high oil/ energy prices. Additionally the only real policy response I have heard from you or Obama folks in general is to raise taxes. And simply raising taxes won't fix any of the above as a stand alone policy.

    I ask again what Bush economic policies do you feel have been reckless and lead to the above?

  20. #70
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Bugs
    Come now Norty – I think you might be plastering the current administration with a bit more blame than they deserve. Not that they are blameless, as they certainly are the one’s holding the reigns. But the blue team has been in control of congress going on two years now and nothing of substance has come out of those hollowed halls to help the US buck up either.
    Good post and I agree with most of it's points. Many of the ills the US has cannot be directly "blamed" on the GWB administration. Congress is also in gridlock and has done nothing of substance to address the issues. As you say the administration "are the one's holding the reins". Their inability to get the horse on the right course indicates a "leadership" failure.

    This leadership failure is in part the underlying problem for grid lock in the Congress. Ramming Iraq war spending bills through congress using rhetoric like "support the troops" or the oft used "unpatriotic" against folks who would vote against the bill are not the behavior of good leadership. Good leadership would first articulate a vision and a strategy based on sound "judgment". Once done consensus and political divisions would be minimal and Congress would act appropriately.

    The US is at a crossroads. A President who refuses to recognize the US, while arguably the biggest player, is still a player in an increasingly complex interaction between the other players in the world. US interests can only be enhanced and protected by a leader that is capable of assessing the long term risks and rewards of US foriegn and domestic policy and actions. The GWB administration by all accounts has failed in this regard both on the domestic front and most certainly in it's "foreign" policy tactics.

    I may disagree with some of the specifics Obama is putting forth in his programs but I see him superior to McCain in understanding the way the US must protect it's interests though multilateral rather than unilateral action. Well thought out long term strategies based on judgment are needed to "avoid risk" to US interests.

    Some will argue Obama is all talk but at least what he is saying has far more promise and makes much more sense than what I hear McCain saying as it reflects long term US interests.

    GWB and McCain if he becomes president continue to fail to comprehend the most basic of leadership behaviors. Multilateral/bipartisan consensus both domestically and globally is not counter to protecting the interests of the US but in the long run will reap major benefits.
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect,"

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    See my Post #62 above Bugs, and add to that the misconceived and tragically bungled invasion of Iraq.

  22. #72
    Thailand Expat
    Bugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    09-05-2009 @ 08:11 PM
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,284
    What choice is there?

    Simple spend less. The real problem is not the amount of tax, it is the out of control spending that has been a long-term problem for the US. Props to Billy-boy has he did a good job of controlling this aspect of things, and I will acknowledge that Bush has done a really bad job on this front. Not only a bad job but IMHO they have used the excuse of the war to basically ignore any attempt what so ever to control spending.

    Regardless of the tax rate the revenue generated as a percent of GDP tends to be fairly stable. High or low tax, the real key to increasing tax revenue is increasing GDP.

    I tried to find some links but most are attached to rather conservative web sites that include other diatribes that I don’t want to mix into this discussion. But if you link to the data from this site there is a good PDF file that shows the total tax revenue has remained between 24-28% of GDP since ’65, and from what I have seen/read on this matter the same trend holds true at list back until the end of WWII.

    Tax revenue: a key concept in Economics
    File (under Data – Tax revenue in OECD countries (19966-2000) plus a compasrison in tax systems).


    The interest rates might have been artificially low, but neither the legislative, nor the executive branches of government have direct control over this aspect of the economy, and IMHO the capital gains tax rate have had little to nothing to do with the current financial situation. And even with the tax cuts tax revenues actually increased during the Bush years – revenue, and budget deficit/surplus are more closely related to spending than to income. Regardless of the tax policy at any given time the revenue keeps on coming, but unless spending is controlled we end up with a deficit.

    I am certainly not attempting to defend Bush because I think his administration shares as much of the blame as anyone else. Mainly because of his administrations inability to control spending, and IMHO using the war as a reason really to not even try and control spending. And when it comes to spending I don’t think McCain will even be close to Bush in totally ignoring this aspect of the economic picture. Part of McCain’s economic view includes pushing for line-item veto power to help reduce/eliminate pork barrel projects that regularly get attached to bills. Working to reduce earmark spending. Right from the McCain web site “comprehensive spending controls… across-the-board scrutiny of spending and making tough choices on new spending proposals”.

    Oh yea and while talking about spending lets have a quick look at the good job the blue team has been doing at controling spending. Last year they put more into the discretionary spending part of the budget than Bush asked for, and this year their proposed spending increases are so bad Bush is even talking about vetoing it:

    Congress's Budget Resolution Promises Spending Hikes Now and Tax Hikes Soon


    Edit in to add link to Whitehouse:
    For Immediate Release

    Takes some real balls for Bush to bash the blue team on spending when he has done fark all to control it over the past seven years.
    Last edited by Bugs; 01-08-2008 at 02:46 PM.

  23. #73
    Thailand Expat Texpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    13,058
    Congress controls the purse strings. Period.

    Have spending patterned shifted since the Dems took Congress two years ago?

  24. #74
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    GDP growth is indeed key- and in the long term critical, although with the current asset price collapse and indebtedness this will take a while to reassert itself, unless a succesful Keynesian fiscal stimulus package is arrived at. However, the extra government debt thus incurred would add further argument to a revenue, i.e tax increase, plus add upwards pressure on interest rates- so really, the government has limited options here, given it is already in debt.

    At the moment, peoples very confidence in the financial system is at stake. The Fed is really propping up the two key elements- fannie mae, and the Commercial banks, as we speak. I should point out the Financial sector, and financial speculation in general is also to blame- but the Federal government should have taken steps to rein this in (as they can) many moons ago.

    A certain amount of tax is needed, for obvious reasons- schools, health care, transport infrastructure etc. The ways to arrive at this essential state revenue are many- consumption tax, income tax, transaction taxes, capital gains taxes, import tariffs, etc. The key economic factor remains the same- to balance income and expenditure.

  25. #75
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    So the economy is not the Presidents mandate after all tex?
    nice of you to let jimmah carter off the hook so easily then.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •