Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole
Time They've Been Praising Reagan

"Wait, you're telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?" Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. "I can't believe I've been calling for a return to Reagan's America. I feel like an asshole."

sadly an Onion article... this would never happen in real life

Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole
Time They've Been Praising Reagan

"Wait, you're telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?" Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. "I can't believe I've been calling for a return to Reagan's America. I feel like an asshole."

sadly an Onion article... this would never happen in real life
Will you ever hear about this article anywhere? No because its bad PR for conservatives. That was one of the high negatives of Reagans presidency was the national debt that he tripled of what John Thune is talking about but than again Obama has spent more than Reagan ever did. Reagan looks like a piker when compared to Obama. I have heard in a book that Reagan wrote that that was one of the things he didn't like that he did in his presidency was tripple the national debt.

Will you ever hear about this article anywhere? No because its bad PR for conservatives. That was one of the high negatives of Reagans presidency was the national debt that he tripled of what John Thune is talking about but than again Obama has spent more than Reagan ever did. Reagan looks like a piker when compared to Obama. I have heard in a book that Reagan wrote that that was one of the things he didn't like that he did in his presidency was tripple the national debt.


um, sure... here's an easy chart for you to use based on figures from the Treasury Dept.

National debt, by president

Obama has a way to go to catch up to Regan.. no matter what he "regretted". Regan also didn't inherit the staggering amount of debt that Obama had to, during the worst financial collapse since 1929.

um, sure... here's an easy chart for you to use based on figures from the Treasury Dept.

National debt, by president

Obama has a way to go to catch up to Regan.. no matter what he "regretted". Regan also didn't inherit the staggering amount of debt that Obama had to, during the worst financial collapse since 1929.


No judging by that graph Reagan vs Obama its about the same amount of debt. I never knew Bush(W.) spent like that. Thats spending like a drunken sailor. True Reagan didn't inherit  heavy debt as Obama did.

There should be a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I mean we can't keep on spending like this. States have to balance their budget every fiscal year so the federal government should do the same. The last time the federal budget was balanced was 1998.

No judging by that graph Reagan vs Obama its about the same amount of debt. I never knew Bush(W.) spent like that. Thats spending like a drunken sailor. True Reagan didn't inherit  heavy debt as Obama did.

There should be a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I mean we can't keep on spending like this. States have to balance their budget every fiscal year so the federal government should do the same. The last time the federal budget was balanced was 1998.


That would be very achievable if we went back to the tax rates of the 1950's, when we did some pretty awesome things, like the interstate highways.  The top rate was 90% for $1,000,000 or more.  With today's top incomes, that would be BIG BUCKS, and you know, the rich still invested, and the middle class grew (unlike today), and Ozzie and Harriet slept in separate beds, and everyone left it to Beaver. 

No judging by that graph Reagan vs Obama its about the same amount of debt. I never knew Bush(W.) spent like that. Thats spending like a drunken sailor. True Reagan didn't inherit  heavy debt as Obama did.

There should be a balanced budget constitutional amendment. I mean we can't keep on spending like this. States have to balance their budget every fiscal year so the federal government should do the same. The last time the federal budget was balanced was 1998.



The thing is, many Republicans don't realize how much Dubya spent. Two wars that were not paid for and mega tax breaks for his rich friends. So, not only was he spending up a storm, he made it possible that there was a lot less $$$$$$$$ coming in.

As for how much Obama is spending-to get out of a depression that we were heading towards (thanks to Dubya's fuzzy math & irresponsible accounting), he HAD to spend. That is what people don't get. This country would be in better shape economically if the Stimulus Package was BIGGER!!! Just about every economist said that the Stimulus Package was TOO SMALL!!! We did dodge a bullet but still got grazed.



Cat 

The thing is, many Republicans don't realize how much Dubya spent. Two wars that were not paid for and mega tax breaks for his rich friends. So, not only was he spending up a storm, he made it possible that there was a lot less $$$$$$$$ coming in.

As for how much Obama is spending-to get out of a depression that we were heading towards (thanks to Dubya's fuzzy math & irresponsible accounting), he HAD to spend. That is what people don't get. This country would be in better shape economically if the Stimulus Package was BIGGER!!! Just about every economist said that the Stimulus Package was TOO SMALL!!! We did dodge a bullet but still got grazed.



Cat   


Yes, but you must realize that the repubs don't want the gov't to be solvent until all the  entitlements and all the social programs are eliminated, and the only thing the fed gov't sends $$ on is the military, to hell with everything else.

Yes, but you must realize that the repubs don't want the gov't to be solvent until all the  entitlements and all the social programs are eliminated, and the only thing the fed gov't sends $$ on is the military, to hell with everything else.



I know. They only recognized the part of the Constitution about Providing for the Common Defense. They forget about Promoting the General Welfare (except if that general is Petraeus.) They want to keep government just small enough so it fits in your bedroom or even smaller-so it fits in a woman's uterus. 


Cat

That would be very achievable if we went back to the tax rates of the 1950's, when we did some pretty awesome things, like the interstate highways.  The top rate was 90% for $1,000,000 or more.  With today's top incomes, that would be BIG BUCKS, and you know, the rich still invested, and the middle class grew (unlike today), and Ozzie and Harriet slept in separate beds, and everyone left it to Beaver. 
The budget was balanced in 1998 so you don't need to go back to the 50's for a balanced budget.

The budget was balanced in 1998 so you don't need to go back to the 50's for a balanced budget.


True, but to get to the Eisenhower activism of the 50's, which would be good for everybody, including the rich, that's where you need to be. 
Look, the Roosevelt and post WWII deal was that labor and capital would split the difference and Sam would do the heavy infrastructural lifting and be the honest broker.  Capital broke the deal and labor was not ready, still isn't ready, to fight back, and Sam is no longer the honest broker, Sam is a corporate tool.  This can only go on for a limited time, but capital will always ask for one last dance, just like the czars

Do you think we can win against the Conservatives in their crusade to shrink the government back to 1900 levels and win against their crusade get rid of the entitlement programs?
Can we return to the Eisenhower tax rates, the era of FDR and the New Deal?
I really don't want to see this nation become a Laissez-Faire craphole.

Do you think we can win against the Conservatives in their crusade to shrink the government back to 1900 levels and win against their crusade get rid of the entitlement programs?
Can we return to the Eisenhower tax rates, the era of FDR and the New Deal?
I really don't want to see this nation become a Laissez-Faire craphole.



Too late. It already is.


To answer your question, I don't know but seeing what I see happening in Wisconsin gives me hope. And it seems to be spreading. I think more and more people are going to start standing up to the corporations that are running this country. And it takes people like you (and I am talking YOU personally, not YOU collectively) & me and everyone one else to GET INVOLVE. Write your Representative, write letters to the editors of your local papers, stand in solidarity of workers EVERYWHERE!


DO SOMETHING!!!!!!


Cat

Too late. It already is.


To answer your question, I don't know but seeing what I see happening in Wisconsin gives me hope. And it seems to be spreading. I think more and more people are going to start standing up to the corporations that are running this country. And it takes people like you (and I am talking YOU personally, not YOU collectively) & me and everyone one else to GET INVOLVE. Write your Representative, write letters to the editors of your local papers, stand in solidarity of workers EVERYWHERE!


DO SOMETHING!!!!!!


Cat


If your workplace is organized, join the union, if it isn't, organize it.  If you're a student, organize a study group on politics, etc.

The thing is, many Republicans don't realize how much Dubya spent. Two wars that were not paid for and mega tax breaks for his rich friends. So, not only was he spending up a storm, he made it possible that there was a lot less $$$$$$$$ coming in.

As for how much Obama is spending-to get out of a depression that we were heading towards (thanks to Dubya's fuzzy math & irresponsible accounting), he HAD to spend. That is what people don't get. This country would be in better shape economically if the Stimulus Package was BIGGER!!! Just about every economist said that the Stimulus Package was TOO SMALL!!! We did dodge a bullet but still got grazed.
Cat   
Well the tax breaks did include tax breaks for the middle class. True some economists said the stimulus package was too small.

True Bush(W.) didn't count the war in his budget. Sometimes CAT I think all this big spending that the Democrats did in 2009-2010 I;m very shaking on because I believe they were mortgaging kids futures.

Well the tax breaks did include tax breaks for the middle class. True some economists said the stimulus package was too small.

True Bush(W.) didn't count the war in his budget. Sometimes CAT I think all this big spending that the Democrats did in 2009-2010 I;m very shaking on because I believe they were mortgaging kids futures.


Who the fudge was involved for the war budget?!

We should've left Iraq once we captured Saddam and have a few troops (not all of them) stay in Iraq....

And I wonder now...will the internet know everything about us and that's how the draft will be reintroduced?

Who the fudge was involved for the war budget?!

We should've left Iraq once we captured Saddam and have a few troops (not all of them) stay in Iraq....

And I wonder now...will the internet know everything about us and that's how the draft will be reintroduced?


Congress repeatedly passes supplemental appropriations to fund the wars, so they added to the deficit but never appeared in the federal budget.  But, of course, once the troops were committed, what option did they have?

Well the tax breaks did include tax breaks for the middle class. True some economists said the stimulus package was too small.

True Bush(W.) didn't count the war in his budget. Sometimes CAT I think all this big spending that the Democrats did in 2009-2010 I;m very shaking on because I believe they were mortgaging kids futures.



So now you have the GOP in charge of the House & the purse strings-so what are they going to do-cut spending. But not just any spending-but spending for the elderly, the poor, & the children. (The rich will get their rewards, don't worry about that.) You say that the Dems are mortgaging the kids' futures-what do you think is going to happen to that future when the GOP cuts education, health care, and other items that directly benefit children today?



Who the fudge was involved for the war budget?!

We should've left Iraq once we captured Saddam and have a few troops (not all of them) stay in Iraq....

And I wonder now...will the internet know everything about us and that's how the draft will be reintroduced?


We should have NEVER gone into Iraq!



Cat

So now you have the GOP in charge of the House & the purse strings-so what are they going to do-cut spending. But not just any spending-but spending for the elderly, the poor, & the children. (The rich will get their rewards, don't worry about that.) You say that the Dems are mortgaging the kids' futures-what do you think is going to happen to that future when the GOP cuts education, health care, and other items that directly benefit children today?


We should have NEVER gone into Iraq!

Cat
We agree the rich should have never gotten tax breaks like billionares.  Your saying the GOP is cutting education, and health care but the House Dems moaned and groaned the other day about the 4 billion dollars in cuts and yet around 100 house dems voted for that temporary budget resolution.


On Iraq they should have let UN inspectors investigate if there were weapons of mass destructions if that was a possibility.

Congress repeatedly passes supplemental appropriations to fund the wars, so they added to the deficit but never appeared in the federal budget.  But, of course, once the troops were committed, what option did they have?


It's sorta like what Enron did with special-purpose-entities.  By keeping it off the books, everybody gets to pretend it doesn't cost anything when it comes election time. 

Much like Enron, when it comes time to redeem the bonds in the Social Security filing cabinet, the taxpayers have to get in line behind the Chinese, who hold the bonds that actually matter.  Both will get paid every dollar they were owed, but buried in the fine print is the part about a world in which a pizza costs $100 (inflation), or in which pizza can only be had if you're willing to grind your own wheat and barter some of it for some sausage from the guy who has a few pigs on his property (deflation).


And I wonder now...will the internet know everything about us and that's how the draft will be reintroduced?


It already does, and the draft won't be reintroduced.  Sending human waves of cannon fodder to be slaughtered by the millions was the Russians' gig.  It's way cheaper building half a trillion bucks' worth of high-tech gadgets every year, but we're not interested in a cheaper military.  There's no money for the defense industry in that!

So we've got that going for us.  My dripping sarcasm aside, it's one of the few awesome things about the present system: all of that money enables us to have an all-volunteer military, and to know that when it's asked to fight, we can do so while sustaining fewer casualties over ten years than were lost in hours of typical WW1/WW2-style fighting.  The Air Force is well on its way to semi-autonomous drones instead of manned fighters/bombers, and the other branches are beginning to see the merits of turning the whole business of getting-shot-at over to the robots.

^ Don't forget outsourcing military ops to unaccountable mercenary firms such as Blackwater Worldwide (Xe)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7EYEAqq_iI/AAAAAAAALIA/eLHg6p0_OJk/s1600/blackwater+cartoon.jpg

^ Don't forget outsourcing military ops to unaccountable mercenary firms such as Blackwater Worldwide (Xe)


Could be worse.  I mean, what if they were unionized? :)

/ducks
//and covers :)

Could be worse.  I mean, what if they were unionized? :)

/ducks
//and covers :)


In a way they are.  I would bet they have base rates, that they have agreed upon collectively, that they don't deviate from, if anything they up the ante.

In a way they are.  I would bet they have base rates, that they have agreed upon collectively, that they don't deviate from, if anything they up the ante.


Not sure what you mean.  Sure, the company gets a contract from the government at a certain price, but the relationship between Xe and its employees is pretty much the opposite.  A little googling for blackwater/xe recruiting (and now I must rinse my browser history with some something a little more honorable, like midget pr0n) reveals that they solicit resumes like any other private business.  A prospective merc sends in his resume, interviews, gets a job offer, haggles over dollars with his employer before signing the papers.  If the pay isn't enough, the merc is free to quit and pay for his own flight home.  To Xe's advantage and the merc's disadvantage, the logicstics of this can be difficult if said merc is in the middle of a war zone...

Exactly how these guys managed to get contracts from the government is going to be one of those Really Interesting Stories that nobody will ever look into.  It seems to me that if I was a general interested in winning a war, I'd prefer to be able to say "Private, here's your $100/day.  Drive this fuel truck from ABC to XYZ.  That's an order", vs. "Xe, here's a contract for $500/day for you to hire a mercenary at $250/d to drive the same damn truck to the same damn place, at least until he decides that $250/d isn't worth it, and he quits, in which case I guess you've gotta hire someone else to replace him, and meanwhile, my fuel's still waiting in ABC."

Not sure what you mean.  Sure, the company gets a contract from the government at a certain price, but the relationship between Xe and its employees is pretty much the opposite.  A little googling for blackwater/xe recruiting (and now I must rinse my browser history with some something a little more honorable, like midget pr0n) reveals that they solicit resumes like any other private business.  A prospective merc sends in his resume, interviews, gets a job offer, haggles over dollars with his employer before signing the papers.  If the pay isn't enough, the merc is free to quit and pay for his own flight home.  To Xe's advantage and the merc's disadvantage, the logicstics of this can be difficult if said merc is in the middle of a war zone...

Exactly how these guys managed to get contracts from the government is going to be one of those Really Interesting Stories that nobody will ever look into.  It seems to me that if I was a general interested in winning a war, I'd prefer to be able to say "Private, here's your $100/day.  Drive this fuel truck from ABC to XYZ.  That's an order", vs. "Xe, here's a contract for $500/day for you to hire a mercenary at $250/d to drive the same damn truck to the same damn place, at least until he decides that $250/d isn't worth it, and he quits, in which case I guess you've gotta hire someone else to replace him, and meanwhile, my fuel's still waiting in ABC."


It's called War Profiteering, bub.  Used to be a hanging offense.  Now it's a proud asset in you portfolio!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/toothy4.gif

It's called War Profiteering, bub.  Used to be a hanging offense.  Now it's a proud asset in you portfolio!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/toothy4.gif


But they're not even publicly traded! :)

(Of course, the defense contractors are, and that's fundamentally no different.  Those microwave pain rays they're trying to sell to police departments for nonlethal crowd control because the Army didn't want the bad PR that would have come from using 'em in Iraq?  My bad!)

But they're not even publicly traded! :)




Oh yeah, that's right....
:-[

Oh yeah, that's right.... :-[


"I demand less corruption, or more opportunity to participate!"