republicans= dumb and dumber

[glassgowkiss]

hey pigfuck, last time you were placing a wager you predicted mcsame by landslide. your opinion is always right on. so fuck off for a bit as we are just tired of hearing your washed up bullshit. your ideas worked so fucking great, that we are in the biggest depression since almost a century ago. you have no argument to stand on.

[Fairweather]

It's a very different world today.

 

The left has Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, the Right has Coulter, Limbauh, and O'Reilly. The left is entertained by humor, the right by anger. The left responds to a particularly well delivered blow with an "Oh God, that was perfect." The right with "Fuck yeah!" or perhaps a simple, "in His name." The left gets its material from footage of the right, the right does the same, but relies more on its psychotic pundits. In this, the left seeks to make the right appear stupid, while the right makes the left appear morally wrong. THe right serves up the same meal of myths: gays are bad, etc..., while the left usually just makes fun of those myths.

 

hey pigfuck, last time you were placing a wager you predicted mcsame by landslide. your opinion is always right on. so fuck off for a bit as we are just tired of hearing your washed up bullshit. your ideas worked so fucking great, that we are in the biggest depression since almost a century ago. you have no argument to stand on.

 

 

Hey TTK, is this one of those angry Republicans you were talking about?

[Doug]

ggk defies labels

[Fairweather]

You mean diagnosis?

[mattp]

Fairweather,

 

I heard a history professor recently say the New Deal didn't work because they didn't spend enough. And by your own analysis of history, it was only the massive deficit spending associated with WWII that ended the depression.

 

I don't know if Obama's plan is going to work, but history (your strongpoint?) suggests that, if comparisons with the 30's mean anything, Obama is right and your Republican heroes are wrong.

[Fairweather]

Fairweather,

 

I heard a history professor recently say the New Deal didn't work because they didn't spend enough. And by your own analysis of history, it was only the massive deficit spending associated with WWII that ended the depression.

 

I don't know if Obama's plan is going to work, but history (your strongpoint?) suggests that, if comparisons with the 30's mean anything, Obama is right and your Republican heroes are wrong.

 

There you go again, Matt. It was KK that brought up WWII, not me. As for the topic, I really haven't read enough or heard enough diversity of opinion in class to know if there is truly a cause and effect. I know this is the broadly accepted scenario, but it would be nice to hear more of the how and why. I'll get to it, I'm sure.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Fairweather

[Mal_Con]

The New Deal was successful but its success was limited because it was not ambitious enough. There was a short recession in 1937-8 when conservatives prevailed on FDR to reduce the deficit. WWII's large deficits ended the last traces of the depression but another recession occurred after the war when spending was again reduced. Obamas stimulus is also probably insufficient to cure the problem, but he will indubitably increase spending.

[tvashtarkatena]

I find that the left these days is driven, primarily, by fringe conspiracy theories--and anger. Limbaugh generates more anger from the left than he garners among his own listeners and supporters. As usual, you have it exactly backwards. BTW; while Stewart is funny, most lefties are not, which is why they can't seem to gather enough of an audience to make a go of it financially. (Think Al Franken/Air America.)

 

Stewart and Colbert are funny, so presumably their audiences are looking for laughs, not anger.

 

Limbaugh, Coulter, and O'Reilly's acts are pure anger (they're sarcastic, but not at all funny), so presumably their audiences are looking for that.

 

As for what you think of the left (just a bit broader generalization than a simple characterization of a few of each side's favorite entertainers); that probably reflects more of your projected personality than reality.

 

As for Franken, well, he never was very popular with any audience, save perhaps his early days on SNL. Not really worth a mention when we're talking about the big ratings horses.

[glassgowkiss]

fw, i am not republican nor democrat- i consider myself independent. but the stupid ideology and politics of the crew in the whitehouse for the last 8 years led to a lot of misery and pain. granted, in a lot of situation it was fueled by greed and not understanding the principals of economy. however the deregulation of the markets is what led to this fiasco. for 8 years, while the republican president was putting the nation in debt, none of the jokers from congress said one word about it. so saying it now is nothing but nonsense politics. just make the guy fail to prove your point.

anyway- you are always right. like with mcsame by landslide. the only slide i can see is the brown streak on you pants. anyway- just fuck off for a while, as you are just annoying little cunt. now go and change your diaper.

[Fairweather]

fw, i am not republican nor democrat- i consider myself independent. but the stupid ideology and politics of the crew in the whitehouse for the last 8 years led to a lot of misery and pain. granted, in a lot of situation it was fueled by greed and not understanding the principals of economy. however the deregulation of the markets is what led to this fiasco. for 8 years, while the republican president was putting the nation in debt, none of the jokers from congress said one word about it. so saying it now is nothing but nonsense politics. just make the guy fail to prove your point.

anyway- you are always right. like with mcsame by landslide. the only slide i can see is the brown streak on you pants. anyway- just fuck off for a while, as you are just annoying little cunt. now go and change your diaper.

 

You were doing pretty well until those last couple sentences when that Russian/German blood in your veins once again boiled over. FYI, Clinton began the deregulation of the banking sector. Were you even here back then?

[eldiente]

What was that thing that Roosevelt had that is widely credited with vitalizing the economy and shortening the Depression? Oh yes, the New Deal.

 

Wrong. The economy only recovered after the War Machine revitalized it. Nice try though.

 

Why didi WWII bring us out of the depression? Oh yeah, massive government spending,huge deficits, large government project (ships, tanks etc) and a huge increase in the the number of people hired by the government (army) People always like to us WWII as proof that the New Deal didn't work and that only the war turned things around. The New Deal wasn't big enough, it took a real crisis (war) and really massive government spending (war) to end the depression. So KKK, if you think WWII ended the Great Depression, your really arguing that what we need right now is more government spending?

 

 

 

[mattp]

Here's the second hit I found with Google (spending compared to gdp depression stimulus):

 

Historians and economists still debate whether FDR's New Deal fixed the crisis or prolonged the pain. After taking office in 1933, he first tried to slash government jobs and spending. And his efforts to balance the budget in 1937 backfired and triggered a new recession within the broader Depression. "Roosevelt came late to some of the ideas of big public spending to stimulate the economy," said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

 

The 1930s began with federal outlays representing just 3.4 percent of the nation's economy as measured by the gross domestic product. Roosevelt's efforts to fight the Depression with government spending caused outlays to rise to 10.3 percent of GDP by 1939 and to 12 percent by 1941 on the eve of US involvement in World War II. By contrast, government spending was 21 percent of GDP last year. Obama's economic recovery policies are expected to bring it up to 30 percent or more.

 

The New Deal by today's standards involved a minuscule amount of spending," said Alan J Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University. He said Obama is more of a "big spender" than was Roosevelt. Roosevelt had a bigger crisis on his hands. Unemployment was 25 percent when he took office. Last month's jobless rate was 7.6 percent, up from 4.9 percent a year before but still shy of the postwar high of 10.8 percent reached in 1982 - and far from Great Depression levels.

 

The first hit, more detail:

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/02/some-tidbits-about-stimulus-recovery-and-the-great-depression.html

 

This guy says much the same thing:

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/12/depression-lessons-how-much-fiscal-stimulus.html

 

 

Meanwhile, hit #4 didn’t address my question, but I got a republican economist saying that tax cuts won’t help.

http://www.thenextright.com/mead50/spending-vs-tax-cuts-bang-for-the-buck

 

 

The Cato institute is the 8th and 9th hits. You can guess what they say.

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What was that thing that Roosevelt had that is widely credited with vitalizing the economy and shortening the Depression? Oh yes, the New Deal.

 

Wrong. The economy only recovered after the War Machine revitalized it. Nice try though.

 

Why didi WWII bring us out of the depression? Oh yeah, massive government spending,huge deficits, large government project (ships, tanks etc) and a huge increase in the the number of people hired by the government (army) People always like to us WWII as proof that the New Deal didn't work and that only the war turned things around. The New Deal wasn't big enough, it took a real crisis (war) and really massive government spending (war) to end the depression. So KKK, if you think WWII ended the Great Depression, your really arguing that what we need right now is more government spending?

 

 

 

1) WWII is *not* part of the New Deal.

2) War is not socialism.

3) If you agree that massive military spending is the way out of recessions/depressions in general, then Obama needs to invade a few countries. Of course our recent massive military spending hasn't seemed to do us much good.

 

Your arguments are weak and simpleminded.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

fw, i am not republican nor democrat- i consider myself independent. but the stupid ideology and politics of the crew in the whitehouse for the last 8 years led to a lot of misery and pain. granted, in a lot of situation it was fueled by greed and not understanding the principals of economy. however the deregulation of the markets is what led to this fiasco. for 8 years, while the republican president was putting the nation in debt, none of the jokers from congress said one word about it. so saying it now is nothing but nonsense politics. just make the guy fail to prove your point.

anyway- you are always right. like with mcsame by landslide. the only slide i can see is the brown streak on you pants. anyway- just fuck off for a while, as you are just annoying little cunt. now go and change your diaper.

 

You were doing pretty well until those last couple sentences when that Russian/German blood in your veins once again boiled over. FYI, Clinton began the deregulation of the banking sector. Were you even here back then?

 

GGK talks a lot of shit about Russians but he acts and talks just like one.

[billcoe]

"Burr and other Republicans are calling on the president to restrain spending, make tough choices and put the nation's fiscal house in order."

 

i just wonder why they did not say that for the past 8 years. btw there was tax surplus in 2001, when bush took the office. it is your party that gave it away to the richest 1%. so fuck off for now.

 

I agree Bob. Here's a phrase you can use when some random Republican starts in on the "Tax and Spend Democrats". Ask "You mean like Clinton? The Dem who balanced the budget after the record deficits and runaway government spending he inherited from Reagan: who, by the way, was a BORROW AND SPEND style Republican like all of the Bushes and all of the repubs seem to be these days. "

 

If most of us had a choice between a borrow and spend or a tax and spend politician, I'm sure most of us would choose the latter.

 

I'm damn tired of Borrow and Spend politicians of any affiliation, but they pretty much seem to be Republicans.

[tvashtarkatena]

Pretty much right on the money.

 

 

[eldiente]

 

 

1) WWII is *not* part of the New Deal.

2) War is not socialism.

3) If you agree that massive military spending is the way out of recessions/depressions in general, then Obama needs to invade a few countries. Of course our recent massive military spending hasn't seemed to do us much good.

 

Your arguments are weak and simpleminded.

 

"War is not socialism." Huh? My simple mind is not following. Is that a complete thought or just a starting point? Now that I think about it, maybe war is the ultimate form of socialism? If we think of socialism as a compulsory way of forcing others to share their wealth to satisfy some "collective good" than this would be exactly what a war is. The government takes your money (taxes) forces you into government employment (draft) so that the group as a whole can prosper by killing some brown people (the collective good) in a country that most of us can't even spell. As an added socialist kick, after you lose a limb you'll now get to be in a lifetime socialist program called the VA. Yes, war is the ultimate pooling of our resources,very socialist yes?

 

The point I was making earlier was that debunk this thought that the New Deal (government spending) was a failure yet WWIII (government spending) was a success. Both were the same damn thing. Building a tank and a fancy ski lodge in

Oregon is the same thing. The tank has a shorter lifespan than a ski lodge, and the "good" a tank creates is debatable but aside from that they are the same. The government pays a bunch of people cut down tress (Timberline lodge) or dig up raw metals (tanks) at a much faster pace than they might have in the private sector. The New Deal and WWII were very similar, the Fed spending tons of cash for people to consume raw materials at an increased pace.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"Burr and other Republicans are calling on the president to restrain spending, make tough choices and put the nation's fiscal house in order."

 

i just wonder why they did not say that for the past 8 years. btw there was tax surplus in 2001, when bush took the office. it is your party that gave it away to the richest 1%. so fuck off for now.

 

I agree Bob. Here's a phrase you can use when some random Republican starts in on the "Tax and Spend Democrats". Ask "You mean like Clinton? The Dem who balanced the budget after the record deficits and runaway government spending he inherited from Reagan: who, by the way, was a BORROW AND SPEND style Republican like all of the Bushes and all of the repubs seem to be these days. "

 

If most of us had a choice between a borrow and spend or a tax and spend politician, I'm sure most of us would choose the latter.

 

I'm damn tired of Borrow and Spend politicians of any affiliation, but they seem to all be Republicans.

 

Another simplistic analysis.

 

Reagan's deficits were the result of compromise: he got what he wanted in terms of increased military spending and tax cuts, while the Democrat-controlled house and senate got their programs funded. Both side gave up something to the other at the expense of the American people - literally and figuratively.

 

Flip the party affiliations around and you get the same thing with Clinton and the Republican-controlled house and senate. The Republicans forced fiscal conservatism on Clinton in exchange for concessions on their part.

 

The Republicans then turned into spendthrift Democrats once they had both the legistlative and executive reigns, and now there are no fiscal conservatives. We have moved from a spendthrift Republican congress/president combination to an even more spendthrift Democrat congress/president combination. That's not good in any way or defensible by saying "but the other side...". That type of argument doesn't even work for 3rd graders on a playground, but it's all I can expect from cc.com libtards. You can do better than them, Bill.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I was making earlier was that debunk this thought that the New Deal (government spending) was a failure yet WWIII (government spending) was a success. Both were the same damn thing

 

You're an idiot. The same thing?

 

Socialism about confiscating property from the haves and transferring it to the "have-nots". No willing sacrifice takes place, and the result is a dependency on the government and a feeling of entitlement.

 

World War II was about everyone making huge sacrifices to defend themselves from a threat to their very way of life. It was a feeling of interdepency and common goals. And there was no feeling of entitlement whatsoever.

 

You can find similarilities in the Soviet Union where communism and the efforts in the "Great Patriotic War" are two entirely different things.

 

 

 

[prole]

Another simplistic analysis.

 

Reagan's deficits were the result of compromise: he got what he wanted in terms of increased military spending and tax cuts, while the Democrat-controlled house and senate got their programs funded. Both side gave up something to the other at the expense of the American people - literally and figuratively.

 

Flip the party affiliations around and you get the same thing with Clinton and the Republican-controlled house and senate. The Republicans forced fiscal conservatism on Clinton in exchange for concessions on their part.

 

The Republicans then turned into spendthrift Democrats once they had both the legistlative and executive reigns, and now there are no fiscal conservatives. We have moved from a spendthrift Republican congress/president combination to an even more spendthrift Democrat congress/president combination. That's not good in any way or defensible by saying "but the other side...". That type of argument doesn't even work for 3rd graders on a playground, but it's all I can expect from cc.com libtards. You can do better than them, Bill.

 

Are you making this shit up as you go along?

[tvashtarkatena]

"Burr and other Republicans are calling on the president to restrain spending, make tough choices and put the nation's fiscal house in order."

 

i just wonder why they did not say that for the past 8 years. btw there was tax surplus in 2001, when bush took the office. it is your party that gave it away to the richest 1%. so fuck off for now.

 

I agree Bob. Here's a phrase you can use when some random Republican starts in on the "Tax and Spend Democrats". Ask "You mean like Clinton? The Dem who balanced the budget after the record deficits and runaway government spending he inherited from Reagan: who, by the way, was a BORROW AND SPEND style Republican like all of the Bushes and all of the repubs seem to be these days. "

 

If most of us had a choice between a borrow and spend or a tax and spend politician, I'm sure most of us would choose the latter.

 

I'm damn tired of Borrow and Spend politicians of any affiliation, but they seem to all be Republicans.

 

Another simplistic analysis.

 

Reagan's deficits were the result of compromise: he got what he wanted in terms of increased military spending and tax cuts, while the Democrat-controlled house and senate got their programs funded. Both side gave up something to the other at the expense of the American people - literally and figuratively.

 

Flip the party affiliations around and you get the same thing with Clinton and the Republican-controlled house and senate. The Republicans forced fiscal conservatism on Clinton in exchange for concessions on their part.

 

The Republicans then turned into spendthrift Democrats once they had both the legistlative and executive reigns, and now there are no fiscal conservatives. We have moved from a spendthrift Republican congress/president combination to an even more spendthrift Democrat congress/president combination. That's not good in any way or defensible by saying "but the other side...". That type of argument doesn't even work for 3rd graders on a playground, but it's all I can expect from cc.com libtards. You can do better than them, Bill.

 

True, but incomplete. You've conveniently omitted the magnitude of Reagan's Christmas list (tax cuts and military spending, which were massive) as compared to the Democrats' (much less massive). Clearly, Reagan, not congress, was chiefly responsible for the resulting deficits, although congress shared a much smaller portion of the blame.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

True, but incomplete. You've conveniently omitted the magnitude of Reagan's Christmas list (tax cuts and military spending, which were massive) as compared to the Democrats' (much less massive). Clearly, Reagan, not congress, was chiefly responsible for the resulting deficits, although congress shared a much smaller portion of the blame.

 

Congress signed off on that spending and those tax cuts.

 

Interestingly enough, Carter was actually a budget hawk, and his own party refused to go along with him, wanting the "pork" they needed to further empower themselves and buy votes from their constituents.

 

This problem has only grown over the years.

 

Edited March 2, 2009 by KaskadskyjKozak

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you making this shit up as you go along?

 

That's exactly the type of vapid, content-less post I'd expect from you.

 

Tell us again why you shouldn't have to pay off your student loans?

 

 

[prole]

They're too big to fail.

[pink]

hey pigfuck, last time you were placing a wager you predicted mcsame by landslide. your opinion is always right on. so fuck off for a bit as we are just tired of hearing your washed up bullshit. your ideas worked so fucking great, that we are in the biggest depression since almost a century ago. you have no argument to stand on.

 

 

why are we in a depression, i forgot? wait, were in a depression?