TPS Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blanco_Diablo Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Interesting article, rings pretty true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Mike Lofgren, the new DNC poster child turned author. He'll sell books alright, but here is one of many rebuttals.. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-GOPs-reaction-to-Mike-Lofgrens-article-in-Truth-Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Mike Lofgren, the new DNC poster child turned author. He'll sell books alright, but here is one of many rebuttals.. http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-GOPs-reaction-to-Mike-Lofgrens-article-in-Truth-Out Nice find Cinga. I'm not sure how old the OP is, but I have read a variation of this (laughably) inciteful article at least one a month over the past 30 years. Just look at what he lists as his three "findings"....the GOP protects the rich...........they love war......and they're contolled by religious nuts Biases that are right out of "Liberalism Fantasies for Dummies".....................just repackaged as an "insiders look"..................LOL Well, those who like to "feel" their politics, instead of "think" about them, will undoubtably lap it up, but those people across America, where the majority lean conservative, will recognize tripe when they see it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 Nice find Cinga. I'm not sure how old the OP is, but I have read a variation of this (laughably) inciteful article at least one a month over the past 30 years. Just look at what he lists as his three "findings"....the GOP protects the rich...........they love war......and they're contolled by religious nuts Biases that are right out of "Liberalism Fantasies for Dummies".....................just repackaged as an "insiders look"..................LOL Well, those who like to "feel" their politics, instead of "think" about them, will undoubtably lap it up, but those people across America, where the majority lean conservative, will recognize tripe when they see it. . My take on the article is that his "coming out" is much like the Reagan Republicans' criticisms of Bush2's policies--it was extremism, not conservatism. Lofgren doesn't want any part of the "we have to destroy it to save it crowd." I would disagree with his point about the rich--both parties are "parties of the rich," not just the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 By the way its "insightful" not "inciteful". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 My take on the article is that his "coming out" is much like the Reagan Republicans' criticisms of Bush2's policies--it was extremism, not conservatism. Lofgren doesn't want any part of the "we have to destroy it to save it crowd." I would disagree with his point about the rich--both parties are "parties of the rich," not just the republicans. you need to expand... what is Lofgren protesting then? Extremism, or Conservatism??? Since his writing is anything but conservative, I would guess the later, especially since his professed views are "extreme" from mainstream views... but enlighten us please... Also, give me some clue??? How the hell can you compare this dimwit to "Reagan Republicans"???? He is the total antithesis to anything they (or the few that remain) stand for!!! Heck, who are you classifying as a RR??? And just in case you hadn't noticed, Lofgren is trumping the same old tired crap of "Republicans refuse to compromise" but failing terribly to also note that Dems, especially the one in the WH, unequivocally REFUSES to compromise, and demands all others tow his line.... And darn... How soon we forgot... that Dems controlled both Houses, AND the White House, and STILL failed miserably in accomplishing anything of substance, or that will withstand Constitutional muster... Go away now... Some know me here, and I think would tell you, I don't play nice.... By the way its "insightful" not "inciteful". You give too much credit..... "Insightful" would assume an article worthy of reading... To learn from.. To gain a new, meaningful understanding of something.. "Inciteful" would mean... meant to incite... usually associated with anger, and sometimes violence against the subject... Just trying to help... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) you need to expand... what is Lofgren protesting then? Extremism, or Conservatism??? Since his writing is anything but conservative, I would guess the later, especially since his professed views are "extreme" from mainstream views... but enlighten us please... Also, give me some clue??? How the hell can you compare this dimwit to "Reagan Republicans"???? He is the total antithesis to anything they (or the few that remain) stand for!!! Heck, who are you classifying as a RR??? And just in case you hadn't noticed, Lofgren is trumping the same old tired crap of "Republicans refuse to compromise" but failing terribly to also note that Dems, especially the one in the WH, unequivocally REFUSES to compromise, and demands all others tow his line.... And darn... How soon we forgot... that Dems controlled both Houses, AND the White House, and STILL failed miserably in accomplishing anything of substance, or that will withstand Constitutional muster... Go away now... Some know me here, and I think would tell you, I don't play nice.... Oh great, another wannabe at PPP... First, if you are a dogmatic republican, nothing will obviously sway you--your goal is to destroy the messenger. Fine. On the other hand, if you believe that both parties are corrupt, then there's hope. Lofgren certainly isn't kind to democrats either, so you are beating a dead horse there. As for my point, a few years back former Reagan cabinet members like David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett and PC Roberts were highly critical of Bush2's "Supply-side economics on steroids." Bartlett wrote a book titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy;" Roberts said GW was using S-side theory to reward his cronies. That sort of stuff.... These "Reagan Republicans" rejected the extreme policies of the Bush2 admin, saying that original S-Side theory was based on remedying stagflation, which was non-existent in 2001. I was making the analogy that Lofgren is similarly rejecting Republican extremism that wants to destroy the government to fix it. It's not too hard to understand. Edited November 27, 2011 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Oh great, another wannabe at PPP... First, if you are a dogmatic republican, nothing will obviously sway you--your goal is to destroy the messenger. Fine. On the other hand, if you believe that both parties are corrupt, then there's hope. Lofgren certainly isn't kind to democrats either, so you are beating a dead horse there. As for my point, a few years back former Reagan cabinet members like David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett and PC Roberts were highly critical of Bush2's "Supply-side economics on steroids." Bartlett wrote a book titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy;" Roberts said GW was using S-side theory to reward his cronies. That sort of stuff.... These "Reagan Republicans" rejected the extreme policies of the Bush2 admin, saying that original S-Side theory was based on remedying stagflation, which was non-existent in 2001. I was making the analogy that Lofgren is similarly rejecting Republican extremism that wants to destroy the government to fix it. It's not too hard to understand. I personally don't care what you think of me... As for your point, ever read Laffer on the Laffer curve??? Ever studied economics? Realize those 3 never bought into Laffer economics to begin with??? I know Bush never bought into supply side, and that even if he had, it could not take hold as the gov tromped on individual liberty too much over his terms... Unfortunately, PBO is doing the same thing on steroids.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 I personally don't care what you think of me... As for your point, ever read Laffer on the Laffer curve??? Ever studied economics? Realize those 3 never bought into Laffer economics to begin with??? I know Bush never bought into supply side, and that even if he had, it could not take hold as the gov tromped on individual liberty too much over his terms... Unfortunately, PBO is doing the same thing on steroids.... Good grief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Good grief... He's gonna be my new favorite idiot REALLY quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 He's gonna be my new favorite idiot REALLY quickly. Then watch, and hopefully you and TPS can actually learn something besides how to refer to someone as an "idiot".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Then watch, and hopefully you and TPS can actually learn something besides how to refer to someone as an "idiot".... Please teach me. I is igmanorit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Please teach me. I is igmanorit. I know... why else would we see this in your sig.... "You're an idiot™" and "!@#$ing moron™" are trademarks of DC Tom. All rights reserved. Don't like it? Then you're an idiot, you !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I know... why else would we see this in your sig.... Since you're new here, I'll explain it to you: Most posts by people here are substantively uninformed and irrational, and can be demonstrated to be as such. That, however, takes time. Time I do not generally have. Time that is usually wasted on people who make substantively uninformed and irrational posts, who refuse to accept ten facts presented to them if it contradicts their one heartfelt yet ludicrous opinion. Therefore, I call people idiots. Because it says much the same thing as "Your post is substantively uninformed and irrational, and can be demonstrated to be as such. That, however, takes time that I do not have, and would be wasted on someone such as you who makes a substantively uninformed and irrational post, and who would refuse to accept ten facts presented to you if it contradicts your one heartfelt yet ludicrous opinion." But it's easier to type, and saves me the annoyance of trying to teach a pig to sing. Case in point: this very post. How much easier is it, rather than go through all the above, to just say "You're an idiot, you !@#$ing moron"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Not one thing in that entire screed about....spending? How about how ineffective the Federal government has been at overseeing the education of children in Butte, MT and Buffalo, NY, or the care of the elderly on medicaid in both cities, at the same time, with a one-size-fits all set of policies, reimbursement and regulations? Given the FACT that we could tax every billionaire at 100%, and still not balance the budget, never mind start paying off the deficit, where the F does this guy get off talking about taxation, while pretending that spending is not completely out of control? It's "interesting" that now that this guy is looking at retirement, suddenly Paul Ryan is the enemy. It's dumbfounding that he apparently has his cause and effect screwed up: Michelle Bachman didn't decide that the government cannot be trusted, the people did. The people began to arrive at that conclusion starting with the bailouts, and finished when Obamacare was shoved through even after Scott Brown was elected-->mostly by Massachusetts Democrats. Even they could see the overreach, yet they were ignored. That was the cause. Michelle Bachman having any political capital, never mind enough to run for President, is the effect. Michelle Bachman is what you get when politicos like this staffer are allowed to run things in DC and create abortions like Medicare, drive it's scope far past ridiculous, and only make it worse over the course of 60 years. IF things are as corrupt as he says, then doesn't it stand to reason that we MUST immediately reduce the scope of government, and restrict what it can spend money on, and how it can spend it? Of course it does. Tax money is their power. If we take it away, we take their power away. Period. Why then is he attacking the TEA party people he names? Could it be that perhaps they don't fit into his little view of how the world should work-->all driven by Congressional staffers like himself? Why on earth should a pissant Congressional staffer have more power than a CEO? If neither should have power....then why should we enable the staffer to gain power from and over the CEO, by means of campaign money coming in for tax money going out? Killing the money is the only way to break the cycle. Or am I wrong? Is there another way to remove the cycle, that doesn't involve spending even more money we don't have? Edited November 29, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Given the FACT that we could tax every billionaire at 100%, and still not balance the budget, never mind start paying off the deficit, where the F does this guy get off talking about taxation, while pretending that spending is not completely out of control? Guess it depends on whether we were taxing income or wealth - income of top 400 = 140 billion, wealth of top 400 equals 1.5 trillion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Guess it depends on whether we were taxing income or wealth - income of top 400 = 140 billion, wealth of top 400 equals 1.5 trillion. So, the government should confiscate the "wealth" of the top 400 so they can balance the budget this year? Whose money do they take next year, lybotomy in Norfolk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) I'll never understand the argument that the GOP held the US hostage, and are political terrorists, simply because the people who were voted into office to rein in spending opted not to automatically increase spending simply because it was "an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II." If a father routinely beats his child every time he gets drunk for 10 years, it is unreasonable for the child to suddenly say "you need to stop beating me"? I mean, it's been an otherwise routine alcohol-induced procedure that has been used for 10 years. Why try to change things now? Idiotic thinking from idiot career politicians. Edited November 29, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I'll never understand the argument that the GOP held the US hostage, and are political terrorists, simply because the people who were voted into office to rein in spending opted not to automatically increase spending simply because it was "an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II." Because they didn't opt to not increase spending, they opted to not increase the country's credit limit. Those are, in fact, not the same thing - the way the budget process works, the money was already "spent" (i.e. allocated to an expenditure), it just didn't exist "yet". Akin to buying a new stove on credit, because even though you don't have $600 cash now, you know you can take $150 out of each of your next four paychecks for it. And, as it turns out, the government needs to float some sort of debt. At least short-term, since tax receipts are net 90 to the best of my recollection (at least mine were, when I had a business), but the government pays out on net 30. Which is not saying the government's financing isn't stupid...just a completely different kind of stupid than you're implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts