Discussion:
The same arguments over and over
(too old to reply)
paleryder
2004-02-14 04:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).

The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new resources
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and property.
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or entertainment,
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
reid decker
2004-02-14 05:59:31 UTC
Permalink
It seems to me you have this exactly reversed. Maybe you'd like to go
back to the Carter years...22% interest rates, 15% unemployment, 12%
inflation, 5 helicopters lost in the desert, several hundred American
prisoners in Iran, lots of union goons, and high taxes and very low wages.
I lived through this. Bush is doing a fine job.
Post by paleryder
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).
The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new resources
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and property.
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or entertainment,
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
Nate
2004-02-14 20:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).
The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new resources
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and property.
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or entertainment,
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
It seems to me you have this exactly reversed. Maybe you'd like to go
back to the Carter years...22% interest rates, 15% unemployment, 12%
inflation, 5 helicopters lost in the desert, several hundred American
prisoners in Iran, lots of union goons, and high taxes and very low wages.
I lived through this. Bush is doing a fine job.
If Republicans want to argue that Clinton was responsible for the recession,
then who was responsible for the state of the economy under Carter? The
previous President? Now what political party was he from?



As for the five helicopters lost in the desert … the next President lost 243
men in Beirut. I know because I was there. The REAGAN state department
prevented them from building bunkers or chambering bullets as a gesture to
their role as "peacekeepers." That order killed those men as surely as the
bomb did.



When the economy tanked under George Bush, Sr. and he had to raise taxes
(remember "Read my lips – NO NEW TAXES"), that was the fault of ...... wait
for it ...... REAGAN.
--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that aint
so." -- Will Rogers
Edw
2004-02-14 20:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by paleryder
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).
The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new
resources
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and property.
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or entertainment,
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
It seems to me you have this exactly reversed. Maybe you'd like to go
back to the Carter years...22% interest rates, 15% unemployment, 12%
inflation, 5 helicopters lost in the desert, several hundred American
prisoners in Iran, lots of union goons, and high taxes and very low wages.
I lived through this. Bush is doing a fine job.
If Republicans want to argue that Clinton was responsible for the recession,
then who was responsible for the state of the economy under Carter? The
previous President? Now what political party was he from?
And similarly, Carter should get the credit for the "Reagan expansion."
Carter began de-regulation, not Raygun.
Post by paleryder
As for the five helicopters lost in the desert … the next President lost 243
men in Beirut. I know because I was there. The REAGAN state department
prevented them from building bunkers or chambering bullets as a gesture to
their role as "peacekeepers." That order killed those men as surely as the
bomb did.
When the economy tanked under George Bush, Sr. and he had to raise taxes
(remember "Read my lips – NO NEW TAXES"), that was the fault of ...... wait
for it ...... REAGAN.
--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that aint
so." -- Will Rogers
Steve Richter
2004-02-17 02:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by paleryder
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).
The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new
resources
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and
property.
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or entertainment,
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
It seems to me you have this exactly reversed. Maybe you'd like to go
back to the Carter years...22% interest rates, 15% unemployment, 12%
inflation, 5 helicopters lost in the desert, several hundred American
prisoners in Iran, lots of union goons, and high taxes and very low
wages.
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
I lived through this. Bush is doing a fine job.
If Republicans want to argue that Clinton was responsible for the
recession,
Post by Nate
then who was responsible for the state of the economy under Carter? The
previous President? Now what political party was he from?
And similarly, Carter should get the credit for the "Reagan expansion."
Carter began de-regulation, not Raygun.
so your stating that deregulation is good? makes sense. You also
agree that low taxes on investors results in high economic growth?
I'm not sure if there are any examples in the world of the affect of
long term low taxes on an economy, but there sure are good examples,
in France and Germany, of countries which practice democrat economics
over a long period of time. Will Kerry be citing those countries as
having economic policies the US should emulate?

-Steve
Edw
2004-02-17 03:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Richter
Post by paleryder
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Slight variations on a theme, but an endless rehashing of the
arguments between those who favor a more powerful, centralized,
federal government, with power, wealth and property concentrated
(essentially the Republican position), and those who would see a
decentralized goverment with power, wealth, and property dispersed
throughout society (essentially the Democratic position).
The balance between the two positions has shifted many times, and
it has generally not been too lopsided in either direction because the
availability of resources and the ability to find or create new
resources
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
could absorb the energies of both sides. A crisis has been created
because now there are finite resources, and there is nowhere for the
truly disgruntled and disenfranchised to go. At the same time, one
position has gained ascendancy in political power, wealth, and
property.
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
Absent some distraction, for instance a foreign war or
entertainment,
Post by Steve Richter
Post by paleryder
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
Post by paleryder
the stage is set for serious class conflict.
It seems to me you have this exactly reversed. Maybe you'd like to go
back to the Carter years...22% interest rates, 15% unemployment, 12%
inflation, 5 helicopters lost in the desert, several hundred American
prisoners in Iran, lots of union goons, and high taxes and very low
wages.
Post by Nate
Post by reid decker
I lived through this. Bush is doing a fine job.
If Republicans want to argue that Clinton was responsible for the
recession,
Post by Nate
then who was responsible for the state of the economy under Carter?
The
Post by Steve Richter
Post by paleryder
Post by Nate
previous President? Now what political party was he from?
And similarly, Carter should get the credit for the "Reagan expansion."
Carter began de-regulation, not Raygun.
so your stating that deregulation is good? makes sense. You also
agree that low taxes on investors results in high economic growth?
I'm not sure if there are any examples in the world of the affect of
long term low taxes on an economy, but there sure are good examples,
in France and Germany, of countries which practice democrat economics
over a long period of time. Will Kerry be citing those countries as
having economic policies the US should emulate
There is no need to. He need only point to the failure of "trickle-down'
economics here.
Post by Steve Richter
-Steve
Loading...