jimmy_from_north_buffalo
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jimmy_from_north_buffalo
-
-
Most of your post is right wing talking point nonsense, but this gem has to be addressed. I understand you know very little about history, but please try and add to this statement. What did Roosevelt 'give' to Stalin that led to the Cold War? I think I know what you are thinking about, but please, let's hear what you mean
-
-
1) Cyclical argument based on the money laundering principle. Your way is always going to end badly. I'd try and explain it to you but for whatever reason you liberal lemmings just can't understand that giving gigantic amounts of cash to a faceless entity with no accountability has never worked in history and it never will.
2) No, I'm saying the New Deal was a virtual bust. You're correct that massive government spending on infrastructure (factories, etc) is what actually ended the depression in the short term (it also plunged us into the record deficits of the Cold War, but no liberal will ever admit what a Geopolitical buffoon the great FDR was).
3) Roosevelt's socialistic fiscal policies had almost no positive effect at the end of the day, and their long term affects have been disasterous, despite the inability of you liberals to get the correlation of perhaps the worst President in US history.
4) Which has been shot all to hell. Wait until the next wave of drug price markups because of the brilliant "Prescription Drug Benefit" leftislation.
5) Is it really hard to understand that Buffalo is exactly the kind of place you liberals will end up with if you actually get what you're pining for? Yeah, I'm in the political wilderness. Enjoy your taxation and 95% incumbent rate with with a worse standard of living than was available in the same area 30 years ago - all with complete liberal government control.
1) No, its your way of ignoring the fact that the tax cuts have ballooned the deficit.
2) Well you are dead wrong, then. The New Deal did just what you said about the World War Two spending, it created billions of dollars of basic infrastructure. The TVA alone created the foundation of economic growth in much of the South. Check out the history of Nashville before and after the Great Depression. Two different worlds. Taking it a step further, that economic growth in the South was the real reason the Civil Rights movement was possible, IMO.
3) Poppy rooster. More proof that propaganda works
4) Sure, lets not give our elderly the medicine they need to live. Brilliant!
5) And following your ideas will lead us to the capitalist's paradise of China. Ya, the air will be unbreathable, the water will kill you if you drink it, but hey, at least everyone will have low paying jobs!
-
1) I agree that the debt and the dependence on foreign oil are both unacceptable. But the tax cuts need not have added to the debt. It's the combination of tax cuts and the complete absence of spending discipline which has created massive deficits. My own preference is to keep the tax cuts intact, and develop at least some spending discipline. Because if you try to do things the other way--let the government spend what it wants, and tax enough to keep up--you'll never have enough tax revenue.
2) As for the Socialist programs to which you're referring, FDR and LBJ did far more to attack capitalism than they did to save it.
1) Ending the Iraq fiasco would be a good place to start. I would perfere to cancel the tax cuts altogether and think more long term, like paying down the debt. Sure, its an enmormous monster, but at least for every portion that gets paid down you save some on interest payments. And a growing economy will also 'naturally' shrink the debt.
2) The New Deal was an attempt to get the capitalist economy moving again, not to destroy capitalism. FDIC was a measure that successfully strengthened the most capitalistic of capitalist enterprises, the banks. Many capitalists hated things like the Wagner act, increased taxation, regulations and such, but with people starving on the streets, that's too bad for them
-
Sure.
1) Government receipts are virtually the same percentage of GDP as they were before the tax cuts. The problem, as it always has been, is spending. But keep regurgitating the same WRONG slogans.
2) No, they didn't. WWII did. Welcome to the great liberal lie.
3) In the short term, government overspending does boost the economy (we're seeing some of that fruit right now). There is a very delicate balance that is being shot all to hell. I don't expect you to understand this very simple point.
Sure.
4) Right. I wish I could live in that Political Utopia that is North Buffalo. Setting the standard by losing every private enterprise, one tax at a time.
1) Yes, spending increased, which also boosts tax receipts, so tax cuts did contribute significantly to the deficit. You do understand that increased spending boosts tax reciepts, don't you?
2) [Chuckle] You mean the massive government spending on the war ended the depression? So if you are saying that the New Deal did not go far enough, I agree. But the New Deal did make the depression livable for Americans. FDR didn't simply let the people starve to death like Hoover was doing.
3) Yes there is a delicate balance, I agree.
4) Again, I was not talking about geographic location, I was talking about your political position being way out in the wilderness.
-
-
He seriously has no idea what he speaks of. Having lived in East Central Wisconsin, I can say with a lot of certainty, Milwaukee is in poor shape (quality of lake water, parks/beaches, general environment, jobs, and especially the SCHOOL system).
Milwaukee is currently in a downward spiral. Facts? Citations? Read the local paper and then do the research. Start with the early June editions, that will really captivate you.
Oh no, you mean its not a perfect? Actually, the city's economy is doing pretty good. Has lots of fortune 500 companies there and its still has a numberr of manufacturing jobs. Have you been to the waterfront? It is beautiful. Interesting you mentioned the schools. How's that right wing vaucher program doing there? Not that I'm against it, but the BS right wing argument that it will force the public schools to shape up is a joke.
-
It would be even better if we felt like our military was being used to defend our nation instead of being thrown into some far out quagmire with no real mission.
-
-
I thought you said nothing was interesting about the story?
Anyway, you called him a pvssy but he isn't. He has concluded what many people have, that this war is wrong on many different levels. He has said he will go to Afganistan, and it would have been rather sporting if the army had allowed him to do so. When I was in the military they actually taught us to disobey immoral orders. That's basically what he is doing. He really is braver than the average soldier or marine. He is willing to fight and also willing to go to jail for what he believes is right.
-
1) With more debt than any society has ever recorded. Someday that bill is going to come do. America didn't become great because of Socialist Programs. That's positively ridiculous. If that was actually the case, Europe would be kicking our ass.
2) Right. Without government overspending, nothing would ever get done. Thanks for the typical "hate the rich" commentary too. The very idea that people should keep most of their own money instead of sending it off to guys like Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens is just so ludicrous to you liberals. Hysterical.
3) They don't follow it because it doesn't keep them rolling in riches at the expense of others. That, my misguided acquaintance, is the ONLY reason they don't cut government. Because the simple perception that they aren't bringing home the bacon to their constituants means a short stay at the top.
4) I live in a city of 300,000 people, moron.
1) The Debt might just kill us, but so might our dependence on oil. And don't forget, the tax cuts are what are adding to the debt now. Or do you actually [giggle] believe the right wing clap trap that tax cuts create more revenue? And the Socialist programs saved capitalism. Wealth must be redistributed or the machine grinds to a halt.
2) Yes, government spending does help keep the world going round. Sorry you are too emotional tied to right wing ideology to see that. Be careful what you wish for... Oh, and I don't hate the rich at all. You shouldn't show your ignorance by assuming things that are not true. I hope we keep creating more millionairs, its healthy for the economy.
3) Yes
4) I was talking political wilderness
-
-
Sort of an interesting story. I'm sure he will go to jail for 8 years. I wonder if we will still be in Iraq when he gets out of jail? Here is the Wikipedia article on him:
-
Good call. Keep ignoring the fact that despite the trillions of dollars thrown at these problems that they're still there in all their glory - at virtually the same percentage as before we tried to solve them with money we don't have. But at least guys like Ted Turner are getting richer off them.
Moron.
Your ignorance is driving your opinion. The facts are we as a nation--rich, middle class and poor--are wealthier, healthier and have more free time than before the social programs of the New Deal and Great Society came along. That's just undisputable. Moron? I think not. Know who is a moron? The guy who would love to cut government spending and have all those people who benefit from that spending with jobs lose those jobs. Taxes would sure go down, especially for the wealthy, but the human misery index would sure shoot up. That's when poverty would increase. You always make it a point to say you do not supporting either political party. Neither party follows your strict anti-government philosophy. Know why that is? Because in a modern properous society the government needs to take an active role in may areas. The notion that it shouldn't is childish. That's why you are so far out in the wilderness
-
Redistribution of income does work great. New York State's idiot liberal programs and ideas have successfully "redistributed" income from New York State to other states. Jobs too. And people!
Sure, most outside observers would say Buffalo is a complete dump compared to any prosperous city in the United States. But that's why we need you to explain to them that Buffalo is really a utopia. If only we had some more pork.......
First off, my point that redistributing income is correct. It has to be done. Secondly, blaming liberalism for Buffalo's decline can only be done by ignoring some very basic truths. No doubt a person like you has no problem ignoring the most basic truths, but I'll just throw some ideas at you none the less. Conservative states like North Carolina and Ohio and West Virginia, to name a few, have all experienced heavy job loses as well. The factories have gone to other countries because there are fewer environmental laws and workers don't make nearly as much money. Perhaps a strict laissez-fair policy on the part of the states could have kept more jobs here, but the wages would be so low only illegals would want them, and then the right would be up in arms about illegals 'taking' jobs.
As to other cities being better than Buffalo I would agree, but again, you and the other Conservative simply chalk that up to liberalism. I'd call it governmental incompetence, which does not have to be the case. Government planning is very important and needs to be done right. We haven't got that here while other cities have been more blessed. Ever been to Milwaukee? Beautiful city. In a very Progressive state. The Progressive movement in many ways started in Wisconsin and they are getting it right. Their waterfront is impressive and really simply beautiful. What did we do to our beautiful park? We put the 1-190 right through the middle of it. That's not liberalism, that's pure imcompetence.
-
Very often liberal spending programs do far more harm than good. Take LBJ's Great Society program. You could make more money on welfare than at a very low wage job. What did people in low wage jobs do? Exactly what you'd expect them to do: they quit. A long-term effect of this is that many people in welfare communities lost the culture of work. This made it harder to break the cycle of poverty.
As though to ensure as many people were born into poverty as possible, the Great Society program included financial incentives for welfare recipients to have as many children as possible. And lest these children be born into stable, two-parent homes, welfare mothers were told they had to divorce their husbands if they expected to receive full welfare benefits. If a father had significant contact with his children after the divorce, he could expect to be punished for welfare fraud.
Nor were these problems unique to LBJ's great society program. Ronald Reagan wrote about how his father was a diehard Democrat. As such, Reagan's father was awarded a local position involving the distribution of New Deal government benefits. Reagan saw firsthand how these programs often discouraged people from finding short-term work.
Whatever happened to the harmful incentives created by the Great Society program? They were reformed by California's Republican governor Ronald Reagan back in the 1970s, and by the Republican Congress in the 1990s. Not only did liberal Democrats create massive problems with their wasteful and harmful social programs, they took little interest in solving those problems once the problems manifested themselves. It'd be less of a disaster for bin Laden to get an atomic bomb than for New Deal or Great Society liberals to get hold of government power.
Hysterical! Yes, liberal programs ruined the ghetto, created more poverty and generally destroyed America
-
Perhaps a basic government course at a local college could bring you up to speed on how much federal funding is used to fund 'basic' programs at the state and local level
-
-
Iraq is being "held up for what it is" because the White house wont release classified information about the future whereabouts of the Secretary of Defense???!!??
Thats a bit of a stretch.
Whats your encore? Calling Bush a 'chicken' because he always "hides behind" a security detail?
Jeez.............
lol, no, because the place is such a mess he can't announce when he, or anyone else, is going there.
-
That's where you're wrong. You immediately played the "at least our crap helps some people," which is contrary to virtually all evidence. Now I know a couple of you lemmings are going to start throwing "Social Security" and other buzzwords around, but the reality is, statistically, despite the astronomical amount of money being tossed around, virtually the same percentage of people are still impoverished, unemployed, without healthcare, <insert other pet cause here>. There's no way to argue it.
Does that mean there shouldn't be short term help available? No. But that's never what you people advocate.
Nor should anyone else, short of the people of that particular society.
Virtually the same as when? Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression? Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may be problems with it, but it can be fixed.
-
Wow.
This who thread ranks up there with the other questions from the press corps over the last few days. That is, their "outrage" that the WH didnt announce Laura Bush's surgery beforehand and why shes now not doing an advocate to prevent skin cancer.
In essence, the press corps now L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y gets in a tizzy when someone get has an odd mole removed from their ass.
What are these fools going to be "outraged" about next? The consistency of the dump Condoleeza Rice left back in Beiging after eating some kim chee?
I find it more amusing that everytime Iraq is held up to be what it is the far-right gets into a tizzy about the media.
-
-
Oh it is different. The liberal spending programs actually do some good. Iraq is a complete disaster all around. Well, unless you hold share in Halliburton I suppose
-
From White House press conference:
Q Tony, when does Secretary Gates go to Iraq, tomorrow?
MR. SNOW: One thing you never do is announce when somebody is going to go to Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20061218-6.html
Tony Snow Tells It Like It Is
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
No hyperbole here
