slothrop Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I will declare my political outlook prior to the post. My political views are progressive, so here it goes: Best: - Lincoln: keeping the union together was a historical miracle (though I now wish he let the South go after blasting the into the third-world). - Kennedy: He jumps into the "Best" category with his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis. I shudder to think what George W and Cheney would have done!!!! - FDR: Visionary and followed through on his vision. Lead country through WWII and the depression. Likely the toughest period the country endured since the Civil War. Worst: - Jackson: he set that standard for corruption and patronage - Harding: Teapot Dome Scandal - Grant: maybe the most inefective president ever and allowed the Rober barons to usher in the Gilded Age I did not list George W because I will admit that we need time to pass. But everything points to him joining Harding and Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 So when a president encourages the importing of jobs overseas, the only thing we are left with to export is knowledge, a non-tangible product. The reason our dollar is valueless (the real measure of an economy) is because we have transformed ourselves into a country of consumers, and very little manufacturing is done here. We have nothing to sell but knowledge, and you can't sell that more than once...Clinton may have benefitted from a speculative economic boom, but he was wise enough to save that money....Bush has shown no such fiscal tendancies. 370114[/snapback] Actually, the dollar is strengthening and the economy has been growing at a decent rate for almost two years now. That's one of the reasons we're seeing higher gas prices. Two, it's not always a bad thing to have a weak dollar. Actually it can be beneficial short term, you just have to watch that it doesn't turn into a long term crash. In fact, the Bush administration has allowed the dollar to remain weak as it helps them operate with a high deficit (eventually unsustainable). Plus, it allows American products and services to be more competetive in the global marketplace ("goosing" the economy"), so it's been in this administration's best interest to have a weak dollar. It's been somewhat intentional not just because "he doesn't know what he's doing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 You do realize that, in theory, our tax money is supposed to fund the running of our society? Wouldn't you rather have your $300 tax check go toward arming our troops in Iraq, than toward a bunch of lottery tickets, and a couple malt liquors? Where do you think that money comes from? Tax cuts are all good and fine at the right time. This was not the right time. The only real purpose they served was to get people to vote for the person promising them. 370133[/snapback] If people want to be honest with themselves, yes.. Of course, Bush can do no wrong to the lemmings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I will declare my political outlook prior to the post. My political views are progressive, so here it goes: Best: - Lincoln: keeping the union together was a historical miracle (though I now wish he let the South go after blasting the into the third-world). - Kennedy: He jumps into the "Best" category with his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis. I shudder to think what George W and Cheney would have done!!!! - FDR: Visionary and followed through on his vision. Lead country through WWII and the depression. Likely the toughest period the country endured since the Civil War. Worst: - Jackson: he set that standard for corruption and patronage - Harding: Teapot Dome Scandal - Grant: maybe the most inefective president ever and allowed the Rober barons to usher in the Gilded Age I did not list George W because I will admit that we need time to pass. But everything points to him joining Harding and Co. 370135[/snapback] Have to take exception with Kennedy. To me, he's generally considered "Great" because he was our first media president, and to coin a current phrase "I've heard of him". Want to balance CMC (a lot to the story behind the scenes that people neglect to look at, in effect, the Russians won that one) vs. Bay of Pigs? I'm with you all the way on Grant. I think overall, the damage that Grant got away with was worse than the Teapot Dome, but just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Actually, the dollar is strengthening and the economy has been growing at a decent rate for almost two years now. That's one of the reasons we're seeing higher gas prices. Two, it's not always a bad thing to have a weak dollar. Actually it can be beneficial short term, you just have to watch that it doesn't turn into a long term crash. In fact, the Bush administration has allowed the dollar to remain weak as it helps them operate with a high deficit (eventually unsustainable). Plus, it allows American products and services to be more competetive in the global marketplace ("goosing" the economy"), so it's been in this administration's best interest to have a weak dollar. It's been somewhat intentional not just because "he doesn't know what he's doing." 370150[/snapback] That is what they are telling us, but, what exactly are these American products you are referring to? It seems hard to be a super power when our money has no value, and the economies of China and Saudi Arabia is exploding right now...it seems the Bush administration is perpetually asking for a major benefit of a doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 Actually, the dollar is strengthening and the economy has been growing at a decent rate for almost two years now. That's one of the reasons we're seeing higher gas prices. Two, it's not always a bad thing to have a weak dollar. Actually it can be beneficial short term What!!? What planet are YOU living on? In fact, the Bush administration has allowed the dollar to remain weak as it helps them operate with a high deficit True, irresponsibility begets more irresponsibility. and now China has us by the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 You do realize that, in theory, our tax money is supposed to fund the running of our society? No, our tax money is not supposed to fund the "running of society". Society runs when people earn and spend their own money with the least amount of government interference as possible to maximize the benefit for all. It’s called free enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 No, our tax money is not supposed to fund the "running of society". Society runs when people earn and spend their own money with the least amount of government interference as possible to maximize the benefit for all. It’s called free enterprise. 370184[/snapback] But there are things that people will never spend money on, given the choice, which are necessary to keep things going... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 But there are things that people will never spend money on, given the choice, which are necessary to keep things going... 370187[/snapback] Not too long ago, people kept things going without money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Not too long ago, people kept things going without money. 370190[/snapback] I've been doing that for years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 But there are things that people will never spend money on, given the choice, which are necessary to keep things going... 370187[/snapback] Like what? Other than providing for a common defense of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 In fact, the Bush administration has allowed the dollar to remain weak as it helps them operate with a high deficit 370171[/snapback] Go back and read my post again. I explicitly say this. I realize that it's a foolhardy position in the long run. [Looking at my post I can see how it came across that I listed it as a "benefit"] As for who's benefiting. Large to mid-size companies mostly (We realize a profit increase of about 1.3 billion/year because of the weak dollar). Companies who do business exclusively within the US are most likely hurting. People B word about the dollar's value versus the Euro & Yen, but the reality is that valuation does not follow economic growth. All indications are that the dollar is stabilized and should be on the uptick (it was at a ten month high versus the Euro last week I haven't looked this week) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 He promised tax breaks (what amounts to little more than buying votes from the "hot-pocket" crowd that your circke jerk buddies so delusionaly pretend that they are above) 370074[/snapback] As opposed to tax raises and entitlement programs? I don't know how you buy votes by letting people keep the money they've earned. I do know how to buy votes by taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who vote for you. This would seem to be elementary logic, but alas, 'tis not so. There must be a "progressive logic" or some such institutional discipline of which I am not aware which confers moral equivalency on those two disparate actions. Welcome to the circle-jerk! It goes on 24-7 on the PPP! 370074[/snapback] Tell you what: I'll stay in my circle-jerk and you stay in your Red Square. Da, komrade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 Like what? Other than providing for a common defense of the country. You can't be serious. Oh my god... I hope you are 4 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I love the lefty nomenclature, for the sheer irony. Ask a "progressive" what he's "progressing" to one of these days. They'll answer with their gibberish "code words", usually involving "justice"... "social justice" "economic justice" "environmental justice". What it all really means, though, is global socialism in their "enlightened" vision and the crushing of individual liberty. All I ask is that you spare me the hypocrisy. If you're an elitist communist who knows better whats good for everyone else than they do, just say so. It's a legitimate (if discredited) political viewpoint that owes more to deep-seated feelings of inadequacy and impotence than any great intellectual calisthenics. It always boils down to socialism isn't a bad gameplan, it just needed better execution. Holy cow, I wanted to use that phraseology to make a joke it's the Gregg Williams/Kevin Gilbride gameplan, but it's a pun in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 i'm surprised there hasn't been one mention of President Skroob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 As opposed to tax raises and entitlement programs? I don't know how you buy votes by letting people keep the money they've earned. I do know how to buy votes by taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who vote for you. This would seem to be elementary logic, but alas, 'tis not so. There must be a "progressive logic" or some such institutional discipline of which I am not aware which confers moral equivalency on those two disparate actions.Tell you what: I'll stay in my circle-jerk and you stay in your Red Square. Da, komrade? 370200[/snapback] The whole "communist" analogy used for anyone who thinks Bush is doing a bad job, is as tiresome as comparing the Bush adninstrtation to Nazi Germany...but whatever floats your boat! There used to be a time in America, where exercising the freedom to think, and disagree with was "what makes this country so great." Are you suggesting that Bush does not have any benefactors? You truly are delusional! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 BEST: Lincoln, a no brainer since success in perilous times is a pre-requisite to greatness. FDR and Reagan are tied for second. Bush will be treated kindly in time even though now he looks bad a la Truman. WORST: Jimmy Carter a nice but clueless man. Woodrow Wilson neither nice nor clueless but a failure anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 The whole "communist" analogy used for anyone who thinks Bush is doing a bad job, is as tiresome as comparing the Bush adninstrtation to Nazi Germany...but whatever floats your boat! There used to be a time in America, where exercising the freedom to think, and disagree with was "what makes this country so great." Are you suggesting that Bush does not have any benefactors? You truly are delusional! 370222[/snapback] Why do you assume I'm defending Bush when I tell you how it is? Why must it come down to this "Bush is the devil, and anyone who says anything bad about me is working for Bush" polemy? Why would you make such an assumption when I have said nary a word about Bush in the entirety of this discussion? What I'm suggesting that one who would so casually subvert individual liberty to "societal needs" is a socialist. Some socialists are just ignorant of the concept (i.e. soccer moms). Those who understand it, embrace it, and seek to spread it, are communists. Your average Republican politician's stances in 2005 would have earned him an interrogation in 1955, an interment in 1905, and an incomprehensible vacant look in 1855. Don't even ask about the average Democrat. To me, they're indistinguishable on any of the key concepts this country was founded on, with very few exceptions (Ron Paul). The moderate of today is the commie pinko of 30 years ago. The playing field hasn't been tilted, it's been moved to a different county. Liberal/progressive is Newspeak for socialist/communist. Why embrace one term and balk at the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 What I'm suggesting that one who would so casually subvert individual liberty to "societal needs" is a socialist. ..... 370235[/snapback] Hmmm....what would you call someone who would subvert "societal needs" to "corporate interests"......capitalist just doesn't sound nasty enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts