-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Did I hit you with a slap of reality and you dont like what you see? Of course, someone with the name of Pagan would not find this offensive at all.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
the slap of reality is that Bush conned a whole lotta people into voting for him by telling them he was going to fix a problem that his mother wouldn't let him, because it is an unfixable problem
might as well spit in the ocean cash.
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Barbara Bush; First Lady on Abortion: Not a Platform Issue By ALESSANDRA STANLEY,
Days after Republicans finished work on a platform that takes an uncompromising anti-abortion stance, Barbara Bush has told interviewers that she does not believe that the issue has any place in the party's platform.
"I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," Mrs. Bush said in an interview with news magazine reporters on Wednesday that was made public today. "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."
Mrs. Bush's comments on abortion came as the Republican Party struggles to retain the loyalty of its conservative wing without alienating voters who favor abortion rights. The platform that will be approved at the party's convention in Houston next week advocates a constitutional amendment banning abortions in all cases.
President Bush had struck a more compromising tone in an NBC television interview Tuesday night, when he said he would stand by a granddaughter who chose to have an abortion.
Mrs. Bush's view, expressed in one of a series of interviews she granted before the convention, marks a sharp break with her practice of not speaking out on policy matters.
Mrs. Bush has declined to state her own views on abortion for years, but her friends say she privately favors abortion rights. Her comments about the platform could have been intended as a signal to pro-choice Republicans that they have a sympathetic ear in the White House.
By expressing compassion for homosexuals, unwed mothers and people with AIDS, Mrs. Bush has won praise from groups that find fault with her husband. Showing Her Steely Side
But in this week's interviews, the First Lady that most voters know only as a kindly, snowy-haired grandmother showed the steely side of her nature that she has mostly kept hidden since her quip about the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro ("a word I can't say, but it rhymes with rich" ), in the 1984 Presidential campaign.
Mrs. Bush called recent reports raising questions about her husband's private life "disgusting" and "hurtful."
She also aimed a dart at one of her husband's top political advisers when she deplored his comments about Mrs. Clinton.
posted
There are just two arguments used by the anti-abortionist.
One is a purely religious one, thereby one that makes it Constitutionally illegal to have a law about abortion, of any kind, as that then constitutes Congress passing a law that respects a religion.
The other bases itself on an attempt to draw a logical consequence from the supposedly Constitutionally acceptable definition of the taking the life of another human being as constituting a crime and declaring a fetus or an egg or sperm to be potentially human, so that the destruction, for whatever reason of any one of them amounts to murder. Unfortunately, though they like to claim (and also claim to believe) that they are being "logical" and consistant, in order to be logical with the arguments they are putting forth, it requires that each time some person is executed for some crime, along with that person's own and specific potential life, also goes the potential life of each of the eggs or sperm cells they have in their bodies at the time or later. Every woman carries several such "lives" and every man perhaps millions.
The religious fanatics need to read and accept the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and admit they are asking us to introduce the respect of a religion with their demands, thereby, simultaneously admitting they intend to overthrow the Constitution and therefore the United States Government, i. e., they advocate treason.
The idiots that like to believe they have a logically valid argument based on the idea that the Constitution declares murder, the taking of a human life, to be a crime are only the extreme idiots they prove themselves to be when they don't, every bit as loudly and frequently condemn capital punishment. (There is no place in the Constitution that declares any being that isn't born to be anything, let alone a citizen and even if it did, the right to life is not limited to citizens, just to the people. Nothing in the constitution justifies declaring that something that could conceivably one day be a human, such as a carbon atom or a bit of protein from a the turtle soup you had for dinner, to have any right of any kind.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be happy if they left abortion where it is now, but Obamas record on what he voted for in Illinois is draconian in medical practice.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a predictor of event in the future, your record is miserable, at best.
As a back biting slanderer, you constantly prove you have no respect for anything.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: As a predictor of event in the future, your record is miserable, at best.
As a back biting slanderer, you constantly prove you have no respect for anything.
The only thing you prove on the allstocks off topic board is that you know how to immaturely call people names.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: As a predictor of event in the future, your record is miserable, at best.
As a back biting slanderer, you constantly prove you have no respect for anything.
The only thing you prove on the allstocks off topic board is that you know how to immaturely call people names.
When, as is the case with you, you act constantly like a half grown up jerk, being recognized as such is not insulting or name calling, it is fact.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please don't confuse the socialists with the truth. And, certainly don't discuss race issues with the socialists. They are the only people that are allowed to discuss anything related to African Americans - after all, they have greatly improved their lives - getting them off of government handouts in great numbers; restoring the African American family; and saving millions of African American babies that would have been aborted. Oops, that's not right. The socialists have virtually enslaved the African American Community with government handouts; have destroyed the African American family; and have presided over the killing of millions of African American babies!!!
CCM, - in the future, please try not to bring up these "inconvenient truths".
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:isnt the right distancing themselves from the word socialist?..
Conservatives are not playing political games. We don't currently have a party. Even if we did, we wouldn't want to win elections if it means pretending to be liberals.
I don't care if Republicans ever win the Whitehouse again. If Republicans aren't going to represent conservatives, I'm not voting for them. In fact, I have voted for democrats on several occassions when RINO's were running (like against the idiot Voinovich).
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:he's put all his marbles on Obama failing as a president.
That's not much of a gamble.
yeah and you voted for Bush twice even tho he isn't a conservative, but you thunk he were when you voted fer him...
you beleive we should return to our roots of conservatism, but when i ask you to show me when we practiced conservatism in this country you don't respond...
Reagan was a good person. he was an OK president...
but he wasn't conservative by your definition either.
you don't have a plan, your leader is a fat guy that only does monologues, and has had three divorces. what conservative family values does that signal? huh?
you want to return to a place and time we've never been... leave it to beaver and andy griffith were TV shows for crying out loud.
you actually hope our country collapses because you don't agree with the presidents plans... yet your plans are fictitious, they don't even represent a majority view.
you called the governor of my state a conservative hero...
as i look at states with conservtive leadership? i find that they have the highest unemploymet rates, poorest education metrics, lowest standard of living and income rates..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Fool me once, shame on... you, Fool me... ... You can't get fooled again"
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
The 1920s was a decade of increased consumer spending and economic growth fed by supply side economic policy. The post war, post progressive era political environment saw three consecutive Republican administrations in the U.S. All three took the moderate position of forging a close relationship between those in government and big business. When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% after a runaway inflation. Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding never lived to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years. One of the main initiatives of both the Harding and Coolidge administrations was the rolling back of income taxes on the wealthy which had been raised during World War I. It was believed that a heavy tax burden on the rich would slow the economy, and actually reduce tax revenues. This tax cut was achieved under President Calvin Coolidge's administration. Furthermore, Coolidge consistently blocked any attempts at government intrusion into private business. Harding and Coolidge's managerial approach sustained economic growth throughout most of the decade, however, the overconfidence of these years contributed to the speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The government's role as an arbiter rather than an active entity continued under President Herbert Hoover. When stocks crashed in 1929, Hoover's top economic adviser, Andrew Mellon, looked upon it as a potentially healthy operation of the market. Hoover worked to get businessmen to respond to the crisis by calling them into conferences and urging them to cooperate. He backed immigration restriction and a cut in the capital-gains tax. Unfortunately, the attempt to get business to voluntarily fix itself did not improve the situation. Hoover did eventually begin to move to do more, but his initial failed voluntary approach to stop the slide were ineffective. The legacy of the roaring 1920s economy is tainted by the inability for leaders to foresee and act to prevent the catastrophe waiting at the end of the decade.
Some conservatives take the contrary position that the government did not pursue laissez faire economics policies. Rather, political initiatives from the Congress became oriented more toward special interest programs that generated economic benefits for clearly identified groups and such initiatives involved an expansion of governmental scope and power. When the income tax was established in 1913, the highest marginal tax rate was 7 percent; it was increased to 77 percent in 1916 to help finance the World War I. The top rate was reduced to as low as 25 percent in 1925. The "normalcy" of the 1920s incorporated considerably higher levels of federal spending and taxes than the Progressive era before World War I. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover's administration, real per capita federal expenditures increased by 88 percent.
In 1920-1921 there was an acute recession, followed by the prolonged recovery throughout the 1920s. A branch of the federal government called the Federal Reserve expanded credit, by setting below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that favored big banks, and the money supply actual increased by about 60% during the time following the recession. The phrase "buying on margin" entered the American vocabulary at this time as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to take advantage of the soaring stock market and expanding credit.
In 1929, however, Federal Reserve officials realized that they could not sustain the current policy of easy credit. When the Fed started to raise interest rates, the whole house of cards collapsed. The Stock Market crashed and the bank panics began.
interesting, the Fed raise rates here too... they were concerned about inflatioanary oil prices.. wh n they did? the wholehouse of cards...
in both cases, the conservatives were in charge, did as they pleased, and then when it failed? the conservatives tried to place the blame elsewhere...
history repeats itself over and over and over ...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i'm still trying to figure out when the good old conservative days were...
the roaring 20's? when the last conservative movement peaked?
I guess...
If you consider the "noble experiment" of prohibition the "good old conservative days".
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When stocks crashed in 1929, Hoover's top economic adviser, Andrew Mellon, looked upon it as a potentially healthy operation of the market. Hoover worked to get businessmen to respond to the crisis by calling them into conferences and urging them to cooperate. He backed immigration restriction and a cut in the capital-gains tax. Unfortunately, the attempt to get business to voluntarily fix itself did not improve the situation. Hoover did eventually begin to move to do more, but his initial failed voluntary approach to stop the slide were ineffective.
does this sound like what we've been hearing today or what?
people who don't learn the mistakes in history are doomed to repeat them...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Harding, in his inaugural address on March 4 1921, called for a prompt and thorough revision of the tax system, an emergency tariff act, readjustment of war taxes, and creation of a federal budget system. These were policies Mellon wholeheartedly subscribed to, and his long experience as a banker qualified him to set about implementing these programs immediately. As a conservative Republican and a financier, Mellon was irritated by the manner in which the government's budget was maintained, with expenses due now and rising rapidly, with income or revenues not keeping pace with those expense increases, and with the lack of savings.
yeah that's THE mellon...
Mellon believed that the income tax should remain progressive, but with lower rates than those enacted during World War I. He thought that the top income earners would only willingly pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. Mellon proposed tax rate cuts, which Congress enacted in the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 73% to 58% in 1922, 50% in 1923, 46% in 1924, 25% in 1925, and 24% in 1929. Rates in lower brackets were also cut substantially, relieving burdens on the middle-class, working-class, and poor households.
d'oh
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Many economists today (such as Milton Friedman and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to give two prominent examples partially attribute the collapse of the American banking industry to the popularity among Federal Reserve leadership of Mellon's infamous "liquidationist" thesis: weeding out "weak" banks was seen as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation. He advocated spending cuts to keep the Federal budget balanced, and opposed measures for relief of public suffering. In 1929-31, he spent much of the time overseas, negotiating for repayment of European war debts from World War I.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: lemme repeat that, they cut taxes steadily from 21- 29 and then the economy immediately collapsed...
Andrew Mellon's plan had four main points:
1. Cut the top income tax rate from 77 to 25 percent 2. Cut taxes on low incomes 3. Reduce the Federal Estate tax 4. Efficiency in government
get it yet? conservatism? yeah, that's the answer, if we could just do it the right way..
it's like an echo that took 86 years to come back...
I'm still a bit fuzzy on how taking money out of the economy and giving it to government helps spur the economy...
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One reason you are is within your statement:
"...taking money out of the economy and giving it to government..."
You have asked a loaded question, that is, one that assumes an answer, (or, in this case, one that refuses any answer that doesn't assume collection of answers).
Might be you need to reconsider the false assumptions your question demands.
Like the assumption that "the economy" exist independent of the Government and is somehow superior to the government, the assumption that money paid in taxes does not function as part of the economy. And the notion that the money you pay in taxes is given to the government, never to see daylight again.
You don't give money to the government via paying taxes. The government collects taxes in order to pay its expenses incurred in providing its functions and serving the people.
The absurd notion that government is the problem is the problem. Ronald Reagan was a showman, not an economist.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right beege... throughout history government has always been the solution.. I mean really.. look at history and see so ****ing clearly how governments have been the solution.. Government is the hope of the weak minded.. Government is the cause of our problems and I would expect no other witless answer from you. Up until six months ago you hated the direction of government.. Now that that direction has not changed in one ****ing way... you all of a sudden are the government's main defender? Like I called it many years ago.. you are a party operative. A very low pay party op.. but none the less. Only a four fingered mouth breathing tail swinging moron could ever think that increasing taxes could ever increase the economy.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you actually hope our country collapses because you don't agree with the presidents plans... yet your plans are fictitious, they don't even represent a majority view.
I KNOW that the country is going to collapse because of the socialist programs our country has put in place over the past several decades.
I have no problem having a view that is different than the majority. Here's a newsflash: the majority is often wrong!
quote:When stocks crashed in 1929, Hoover's top economic adviser, Andrew Mellon, looked upon it as a potentially healthy operation of the market. Hoover worked to get businessmen to respond to the crisis by calling them into conferences and urging them to cooperate. He backed immigration restriction and a cut in the capital-gains tax. Unfortunately, the attempt to get business to voluntarily fix itself did not improve the situation. Hoover did eventually begin to move to do more, but his initial failed voluntary approach to stop the slide were ineffective.
This time, the government has taken the opposite approach - they've thrown TRILLIONS of dollars at the mess and this approach has failed also. Stocks have fallen in the last year approximately the same percentage that they fell in the great depression! In the great depression, stocks dropped a total about 89% in 4 years. I expect that to happen this time as well. The difference is that this time we have committments for the future (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Section 8, etc, etc, etc) that we can't possibly pay for. Instead of a depression followed by recovery, we can expect a depression followed by a collapse of the country!
Why don't you socialists understand the numbers? It's not that difficult. It's really just a financial statement. Assets on one side of the page and liabilities on the other. In the case of our country, the liabilities in the near future FAR exceed any possibility of every paying them. SIMPLE!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a financial twit with the personality of a jackhammer and the social grace of fresh hog feces loose in Allstocks Off Topics.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Put this financial statement that you are talking about in this thread so we can all look at it together.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This time, the government has taken the opposite approach - they've thrown TRILLIONS of dollars at the mess and this approach has failed also. Stocks have fallen in the last year approximately the same percentage that they fell in the great depression! In the great depression, stocks dropped a total about 89% in 4 years. I expect that to happen this time as well. The difference is that this time we have committments for the future (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Section 8, etc, etc, etc) that we can't possibly pay for. Instead of a depression followed by recovery, we can expect a depression followed by a collapse of the country!
you are correct to a point, we took a different approach this time, AFTER the system collpsed, we responded differently.
you really have a difficult time keeping more than one concept on your RAM don't you?
the economic system already collapsed PM. that is the key point. it collapsed under the the application of same economic philosophies that were applied in the 20's
and that was the point to my "rant". when the Conservaties were in charge in the 20's they set up the same crash, and the conservatives (in retrospect) denied culpability just like you do now. that makes you a liar, just like they were.
get it now? your plans are proven to fail. they already brought severe failure twice in the last 100 years.
what you are seeing now is the aftermath of the complete failure being dealt with.
could it be dealt with "better"? probably, but the fact is we are dealing with it differently this time, and the rel issue is keeping as many people employed as possible. not how much the dow goes down or up...
if we lose a certain amount of jobs? the dow won't matter at all...
and the only reason we got out of the last depression when we finally did was because of the WW2.
when you say you hope that our system fails under Obamas so that your philosiphic principles can be re-applied? you are basically saying you hope things get even worse than they did while your "side' frigged the whle system up so people will be so screwed up they'll accept anything. that's just sick.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
