AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclop, again the detail is in those links. In quite some detail actually. And again, I'm not answering any more of your questions until you decide to join the debate instead of just being an agitator. Provide your rebuttal to my statement if you can. If you agree with that statement, then you have no quarrel with any of my links. If you don't agree with the information in my links, then you cannot honestly say that you agree with my statement.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

SO FAR IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT OBAMA WILL MANAGE UNEMPLOYMENT, INCOME TAX RATES, FEDERAL REVENUES, AND GPD, BETTER THAN BUSH DID. UNFORTUNATELY IT LOOKS LIKE OBAMA WILL MANGE THESE FAR WORSE.

BUSH 43
Unemployment increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 6.0% in 2003.
Unemployment decreased from 6.0% in 2003, to 4.6% in 2007.
Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2007 to 7.2% in 2008.

Income tax rates decreased from 15% min and 39.1% max in 2001, to 10% min and 35% max in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Revenues increased from 1.991,426 million in 2001, to 2,662,474 million in 2008.

GDP increased from 10,128.0 billion in 2000 to 14,208.7 billion in 2008.

In fairness to President Obama, we can't blame him for a recession that he inherited while we refuse to allow the liberals to place all the blame for the recession on President Bush. President Bush certainly has to share in the blame for failing to provide adequate leadership in government's role in the economy. And President Obama deserves full blame for his failure to lead when he was handed a bully pulpit, for failure to keep promises, for the most ignorant and idiotic economic plan to deal with a deep recession that I have EVER seen, and for saying really unfortunate things for weeks now that I believe have exacerbated the problems we have.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I do agree that it will take a miracle for the Obama formula to fail to increase unemployment and reduce the GDP.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

OBAMA IS LEADING THE USA RAPIDLY TO HERE.

Wisdom circa 1778

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

As of 1913, the USA's Constitutional Republic had existed for 124 years (1913 - 1789). During the next 96 years (2009 - 1913) the voters discovered that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority has increasingly voted for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury. Obama, if not impeached soon enough, will lead the climax of this trend, and the USA will now progress "from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency ... to bondage" and dictatorship.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What did we start in 1913? I always related the birth of the mother sow to the 1930's and New Deal.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, as damaging as Bush's last two years have been to our economy, Obama is currently acting to damage our economy much much more.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I do agree with that. As inept and incompetent and big government as President Bush could be, he was far too much a man of principle to intentionally take us down this road headlong into full Marxist-tinged socialism. I read this morning that some of the more financially stable European nations are wanting President Bush back. Smile

But what happened in 1913 that diverted us all onto the low road?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, in 1913, we introduced so-called progressive or graduated income taxes. The 16th Amendment adopted in 1913 only granted government the power to tax incomes "from whatever source derived." The 16th Amendment did not grant government the power to tax dollars of income differently depending on how many dollars were received. Since 1913 and the adoption by Congress of such an income tax. a majority of voters paid lower taxes than a minority of the voters, thereby granting a majority of the voters the power "to vote themselves money from the public treasure[y]" From that moment on, the majority began voting "for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ah okay. I see your rationale there, and, while we remain at somewhat differing places on what a flat tax is, I agree there is much room for mischief in those floating progressive tax rates. For instance, a President who promises to cut taxes for 90% of us while increasing taxes on the very rich. Now he says that 90% of us will see no tax increase while he increases taxes on the very rich. Pretty soon we'll begin seeing promises that 90% of us will barely notice the tax increases while the very rich see their taxes go up a lot......and so on.

Of course he probably thinks he can raise the level of water at one end of the bathtub by removing water from the other end too.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION

Foxfyre, in 1913, we introduced so-called progressive or graduated income taxes. The 16th Amendment adopted in 1913 only granted government the power to tax incomes "from whatever source derived." The 16th Amendment did not grant government the power to tax dollars of income differently depending on how many dollars were received. Since 1913 and the adoption by Congress of such an income tax. a majority of voters paid lower taxes PER DOLLAR OF INCOME than a minority of the voters, thereby granting a majority of the voters the power "to vote themselves money from the public treasure[y]" From that moment on, the majority began voting "for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury."

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this morning that some of the more financially stable European nations are wanting President Bush back.

That's interesting. Which Europeans nations want President Bush back, and where did you read that?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR wrote:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/

Part III, Chapter II
'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the OBAMA Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the OBAMA Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the OBAMA Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I read this morning that some of the more financially stable European nations are wanting President Bush back.

That's interesting. Which Europeans nations want President Bush back, and where did you read that?

I think this was it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aTafsPsPnkdw

But there was another clip too that Poland and the Czech Republic and I think one other country, who seem to be more financially solvent than some, are more skeptical of Obama's economic plan, but I can't find it now. If I run across it again, I'll post it. . .

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop, again the detail is in those links.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Definitely wrong. I went back and re-read all of them, just now, and they do not in fact support your contention.

Quote:

In quite some detail actually

Only if by some detail you mean no detail.

Quote:

And again, I'm not answering any more of your questions until you decide to join the debate instead of just being an agitator. Provide your rebuttal to my statement if you can. If you agree with that statement, then you have no quarrel with any of my links. If you don't agree with the information in my links, then you cannot honestly say that you agree with my statement.

I do have a problem with your statement; it is factually incorrect, it is not relevant to the discussion at hand, and you are using this sticking point to avoid having to discuss the next step of the problem, namely: how the investment houses got tied up in the mortgage biz.

I do not believe you are acting in a rational manner; no matter what I say or don't say, you refuse to move forward, b/c to do so would destroy your case. It is plainly obvious that you are taking this tactic to avoid admitting you are wrong. Even when I agree with your case just for the sake of argument, you refuse to move forward, no matter the logical inconsistencies with declaring the issue dead on the spot.

I am no longer asking you to answer the questions, Fox, b/c you have proven you are either unwilling or unable to do so. I have spent all day attempting to engage you in a civil discussion on this issue, but you have avoided the responsibilities which go hand in hand with a civil discussion. You always wonder why people resort to invective and ad hominem when talking to you; here's one reason: when you are incorrect about something, instead of admitting you are wrong or don't know the answer, you turn into a little **** and act like a childish brat, refusing to answer questions and just declaring that you are correct and that's the end of that. It's hardly grownup behavior and a waste of time.

Instead, I will simply point out at every single opportunity what an unintelligent hack you are being, and continually ridicule you for both your ignorance and your lack of debating skills. This is more fun to me and frankly more productive. I'm seriously questioning why I even thought you would be a rational actor in this discussion in the first place, b/c it isn't like any of this is new.

I declare you to be ignorant on the subject and unworthy of my further time. Anyone else who would like to address the subject of how the current crisis came about, I am more than happy to discuss this issue with; it is plainly clear that greed and avarice on the part of the Investment industry has led to our economic downfall, far more than any other factor.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR wrote:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part III, Chapter IV
'If [OBAMA] THINKS he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously THINK I see him do it, then the thing happens.' Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.'

He had no difficulty in disposing of the fallacy, and he was in no danger of succumbing to it. He realized, nevertheless, that it ought never to have occurred to him. The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You're an idiot, Ican. Truly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yup. Cyclop has dissolved into ad hominem and personal insults again Ican. He's out of ammo. He can't rebut my statement so he has to declare me to be acting in an irrational manner. He can't admit the truth of your parody so you must be an idiot. They all run out of ammo sooner or later, don't they Smile

But that's okay. Because we can then be absolutely certain that we're on the right track.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Thank you. Well, that was all about the missile- defense system that Poland and the Czech Republic would like to see built, and which Bush promised them. I can see that they would be sceptical of President Obama, as his course in that regard seems to be slightly different from the visions the neocons had for the "New Europe".

Anyways, I thought you'd link to something that was at least remotely linked to the current economical policies of the Obama administration. At least what you wrote here suggested that much:

Foxfyre wrote:

As inept and incompetent and big government as President Bush could be, he was far too much a man of principle to intentionally take us down this road headlong into full Marxist-tinged socialism. I read this morning that some of the more financially stable European nations are wanting President Bush back.

However, there was nothing in the article. In fact - regarding your statement about "the more financially stable European nations" - the article rather mentions that

Quote:

Eastern Europe will slide into a recession this year as export demand collapses, with its economies shrinking 0.4 percent, the International Monetary Fund said in January.

Maybe you'll find what you read again. A link to a relevant article would be very much appreciated.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup. Cyclop has dissolved into ad hominem and personal insults again Ican. He's out of ammo. He can't rebut my statement so he has to declare me to be acting in an irrational manner. He can't admit the truth of your parody so you must be an idiot. They all run out of ammo sooner or later, don't they

But that's okay. Because we can then be absolutely certain that we're on the right track.

I'm not 'out of ammo,' Fox, I left your bleeding, idiot corpse on the floor. There's nothing left to shoot.

Seeing you crow about how your ignorance has led to a breakdown in discussion is a mixture of sad and disgusting. You know very well the dance you were doing. Everyone else reading this thread also knows it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

Well, she posted something tangential to the discussion b/c she's an idiot who doesn't understand what is being discussed, and can't be bothered with things like logic or evidence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know