....lybob

On this we agree completely - if I sound passionate it's because I hate nothing more than hypocrisy, I hate it in others and I hate it in myself. I was a Reagan supporter for his first term (he ran as a fiscal conservative) he turned out to be a hypocrite. I think Obama is a hypocrite in about twenty different ways. I'm a 2nd amendment supporter but I don't think a lot of people get it, it's not about hunting or self defense against a mugger it's about self-defense against a tyrannical government and guns are not enough, it should be the right to have RPGs, IEDs, and stinger missiles the second amendment was written in a time where Muskets were pretty much the state of the art and the framers couldn't imagine the disparity of power between the citizenry and state government in comparison to the federal government.

This Data is more recent than mine(2007) so I bow, it makes sense that during an major economic downturn that the larger more urban Blue States are hit harder and need more Federal help- but I hope you acknowledge that during better economic times that the richer Blue States carried the poorer Red States.

"At the end of the day, some states are going to bring in more revenue than they send to Washington while some are going to get back less." ding ding ding we have a winner, and the same is true about individuals, hey I'd like to pay less or no taxes who wouldn't but it galls me to hear people complaining about spending on social programs as if they are the only ones who has their taxes going to programs they don't like- you don't like your taxes money going to head start? I don't like my taxes going for Homeland security- you don't like your taxes going for school lunches? I don't like my taxes supporting a grotesquely overgrown military, and so on and so on- maybe we should all get to vote with our tax money, you send your tax dollars to the programs you like and I'll send my tax dollars to the programs I like.

I normally hate these but that made me laugh.

I like how you guys work in teams, it's very social how you defend your buddies flank, I notice a trend on how team right-wing works - A) dispute the facts and if that doesn't work b) claim the facts while true are meaningless. and for (overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid) look in the mirror.

Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back? (From Tax Foundation) New Mexico $2.03 Mississippi $2.02 Alaska $1.84 Louisiana $1.78 West Virginia $1.76 North Dakota $1.68 Alabama $1.66 South Dakota $1.53 Kentucky $1.51 Virginia $1.51 Montana $1.47 Hawaii $1.44 Maine $1.41 Arkansas $1.41 Oklahoma $1.36 South Carolina $1.35 Missouri $1.32 Maryland $1.30 Tennessee $1.27 Idaho $1.21 Arizona $1.19 Kansas $1.12 Wyoming $1.11 Iowa $1.10 Nebraska $1.10 Vermont $1.08 North Carolina $1.08 Pennsylvania $1.07 Utah $1.07 29 Indiana $1.05 Ohio $1.05 Georgia $1.01 Rhode Island $1.00 Florida $0.97 Texas $0.94 Oregon $0.93 Michigan $0.92 Washington $0.88 Wisconsin $0.86 Massachusetts $0.82 Colorado $0.81 New York $0.79 California $0.78 Delaware $0.77 Illinois $0.75 Minnesota $0.72 New Hampshire $0.71 Connecticut $0.69 Nevada $0.65 New Jersey $0.61

the number I got says 13.6% for the year, 1980 best Time article say 18% neither are 20+% which means he grabbed the number out of his memory or his butt- other people I wouldn't care but him he's a pain.

Magox you do realize that in general the Blue states are subsidizing the Red states you must realize things like Social Security has been running surpluses for years is owed almost 3 trillion from the general fund- that at current rules would be solvent until 2037- is in trouble through no fault of it's own but because it has been systematically robbed for years and the chances of being paid back is almost nil. Which means the poor and Middle-class have been subsidizing everyone else.

you may be my elder but certainly not my better. and in case you missed it. I'll prefer Historical US Inflation Rate 1914-Present inflation a high 13.6% but not 20+% http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati...n_currentPage=2 that Times article was from 1980, since when are they accurate about the numbers so close to the fact.

This is last post wins isn't?

I'll prefer Historical US Inflation Rate 1914-Present inflation a high 13.6% but not 20+% http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati...n_currentPage=2

Since as I've posted that I don't like the Dems either what's your point- my point is that Nixon probably wouldn't make it as a Republican if he ran on the programs he has passed- if your argument is that Democrats suck too your not hurting my feelings my mission isn't to prove Democrats good just Republicans bad - or more accurately I think both parties are owned in order by 1. Big finance, 2. Military Industrial complex, 3. Big energy 4. Insurance/ Pharma tie 6.Big agribusiness, and while I think it's a higher percentage of Republicans on a functional level it doesn't matter.

I said show inflation was 20+% The simple fact was that most of Reagan's Presidency was spent un-Cartering, and laying the groundwork for un-LBJing, which is to say, un-!@#$ing, this country. When he took over, interest rates were at 20+%, and so was inflation. By the time Bush 1 left office, they were down to their lowest point in the preceding 20 years. did I ask about interest rates?

I seen all kinds of cop on citizen beat-downs - unless you plan to kill and/or die you are not going to come out ahead in a physical altercation - racism, class, play a part but anyone can get abused I've seen lippy white teen girls get slapped to the ground and rag dolled by a hulking cop, -grand mothers, skater-punks, deaf people, - right or wrong cops want immediate compliance this gets the (mentally ill/impaired/unstable, sensory impaired, physically impaired, non-English speaking and ornery stubborn) beat down a lot.

I call Bullsquat ! show proof that inflation was at 20+%

The question is more Bullsquat because you sneakily threw in the word official- You probably know of the Bopp purity test and if you follow politics you know that Republican incumbents like Scozzafava, Specter, Chris, and Bennett are all being challenged from the right on grounds that they are too moderate.

Bullsquat! this part of the thread comes from Rightwing retarded rhetoric that Clinton was only economically successful because of Reagan.

Nixon 1. imposed wage and price controls. 2. indexed Social Security for inflation . 3. created Supplemental Security Income. 4. created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 5. created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 6. promoted the Legacy of parks program. 7. implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program. 8. dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide. 9. signed a bill that lowered the maximum U.S. speed limit to 55 miles per hour to conserve gasoline during the 1973 energy crisis. 10. established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. 11. On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. Nixon is more to the left than Clinton, and maybe Obama.

take it up with -Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: fascism If you don't like the word Fascism, I'll use the corporatist to describe 99.9% of republicans and 80% democrats- my guess is that this doesn't represent a conscious and consistent philosophy as much as pure self-interest but it is the De facto result.

Fascism Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. Sounds like about 99.9 of republicans and about 80% of Democrats.

"I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys." Clinton was a far better fiscally conservative President. Republicans are only fiscally conservative when Democrats are in power or they don't like where the money is being spent.

Totally agree, Nixon had some personality flaws but was a very good president. A question I have about Nixon is could he pass the Republican litmus test today.

Was just Bolstering Booster4324 recollection, which was my recollection too, as for the dropping of A-bombs on Japan I think history supports it was the right thing to do- the only debate is did we need unconditional surrender or could we have accepted a conditional surrender, looking at the Japanese conditions it would have been more of a truce than a surrender which was unacceptable- in the end it was better for Japan too, it led to a democracy, and it prevented Soviet intervention that might have led to a Japan divided as Germany was.

from Bloomberg 2004 "Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics Two decades of economic results favor neither approach -- it's a draw The heavyweight economy policy debate over the past two decades has been Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics. Reaganomics -- as practiced by Reagan and by President George W. Bush -- emphasized that in order to spur growth and jobs, tax rates need to be lowered to encourage people to save, invest, and take risks. Rubinomics -- named after Robert E. Rubin, President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary -- focuses instead on cutting the budget deficit. Its proponents argue that reducing long-term interest rates is the best way to foster growth and the creation of new jobs, since that frees up resources for private investment. Clinton and, to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush followed this policy. After two decades of back and forth, with partisans on both sides hurling invective at one another, the best that can be said is that the two philosophies seem to have fought each other to a draw. Measured by growth and jobs, both have worked much better than their opponents predicted -- but not the way their supporters expected. Consider, for example, the public debate over the short-run effects of Reagan's first set of tax cuts. Supply-siders predicted that tax cuts would generate enough additional growth that they would quickly pay for themselves with new tax revenues -- the so-called Laffer curve. Conversely, opponents -- a group that included most mainstream economists -- argued that big tax cuts would create an inflationary surge, boost interest rates, and squeeze out private investment, leading to sluggish growth. Neither the Pollyanna nor the Doomsday short-run scenarios turned out to be true. Soon after taking office, economists in the Reagan Administration abandoned the idea that the immediate growth dividend from tax cuts would be big enough to hold down the budget deficit. Indeed, as the economy went into a deep recession from July, 1981, through the end of 1982, the deficit skyrocketed, hitting 6% of gross domestic product in 1983. Still, Reagan's growth record looks pretty good in retrospect, averaging 3.4% annually from the time he took office to the time he left. That's just below the 3.6% average growth rate during Clinton's term, and right around the post-war average. And while unemployment stayed high, private-sector jobs grew at a 2.3% annual rate, again just below Clinton's 2.6% rate. What's more, many of the negative consequences predicted from big deficits didn't happen. Inflation, rather than soaring, fell sharply. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds plummeted, from over 12% in 1984 to less than 8% in 1986, despite deficits that still exceeded 5% of GDP. And business investment during the Reagan years averaged 12% of GDP, higher than during Clinton's term, as foreign money flowed in to help fund the deficit. "Most of us were surprised at how open the U.S. economy turned out to be," said Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist who wrote a skeptical book in 1988 about Reaganomics called Day of Reckoning. Similarly, when the debate over taxes vs. the budget deficit was replayed in the early 1990s, all the short-term forecasts, both positive and negative, were once again off the mark. When Clinton raised taxes in 1993 to stem the yawning deficit, Newt Gingrich, then a leading Republican member of the House of Representatives, famously argued: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." That didn't happen, of course. The economy went on to experience the longest expansion on record, unemployment eventually fell below 4%, and the deficit not only fell, by 1998 it had turned into a surplus. The stock market, adjusted for inflation, went up at an 11.2% average yearly rate during the Clinton years, compared with an average gain of 6% for Reagan. The economy did not follow the course predicted by the deficit-cutters, however. Although the deficit did fall sharply, long-term interest rates rose, going from under 6% in 1993 to almost 8% by the end of 1994. It wasn't until 1998 that rates fell conclusively below their 1993 levels. And even during the so-called investment boom from 1995 to 2000, business capital spending averaged only 11.8% of GDP, below the Reagan average. Rubin acknowledges the problem in his 2003 book, In an Uncertain World: "In retrospect, the effect of the Clinton economic plan on business and consumer confidence may have been even more important than the effect on interest rates." In fact, the real story of the Clinton years is something the supporters of Rubinomics never expected -- the technology boom of the late 1990s. Although average business investment during the boom years was not exceptional, the Information Revolution helped trigger big gains in productivity and growth as early as 1996. That's not something Clinton's economists saw coming or even expected to continue: the 1997 Economic Report of the President, released in February of that year, predicted that growth would average a meager 2.2% over the next four years. The actual growth rate turned out to be 3.9%. Given today's intensely partisan political atmosphere, it's ironic that the economic record of the past two decades favors neither Reaganomics nor Rubinomics. History shows that it's possible to have a sustainable boom with high deficits, as Reagan did, just as it's possible to have a sustainable boom with higher taxes, as Clinton did. Taxes and deficits do matter -- they just don't matter as much as the ideologues would have us believe."

I must be a conservative because I really want the Blue States to stop subsidizing those Red State moochers .