Honorius I would love to get the neighborhood together, but they won't come out of their house. It's to damn hot down here in Texas lol.

Quote:

Was Reagan in favor of massive government?

when looking past the empty political rhetoric, virtually no one could deny that he favored massive government deficit & debt

the whole left vs right thing reminds me of the song "the gloaming"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cnh0-HID....

I think the political parties should be rebranded as...
- the leftist BANKING party
- the right leaning BANKING party
- others

at least if we were honest in their branding that would leave opportunity for something better. until we do that, there is little purpose for left vs right ideology.

Rather than answer the question you call it rhetoric. Sad.

Guess what, YOU can vote 'em all out. But, it won't do you a bit of good!

Why, because the ones YOU DON'T VOTE for will still be there in their ear and with suitcases of money for them for the "right votes". If you vote them all out every time you will have a body that doesn't have a clue about anything.

I will make a small wager, I bet even with all the "vote 'em all out" fever that more than 90% of the same characters will be baaack!

Voting in a corrupt system is the ultimate cop-out and delusional.

IT will NOT WORK ANYMORE!!!!

1994 anyone?? look at the wonderful results of that contract!

Quote:

Voting in a corrupt system is the ultimate cop-out and delusional.

And opting out gets you nothing.

Regan did much damage and started the fall of the shining city on a hill.

In fact his theory not even taken to a bit of an extreme is now on display and the results are obvious.

It's easy to spot the left/right gamers as they always speak of what they said or favor not what they DID.

May get YOU nothing, but anyone with a sense of morality gains much.

Some of us are not opting OUT , but defining the rules before we play again.

That WILL get you something.

No man is perfect and Reagan accomplished much even with a Democratic controlled congress.

If you wait for the ideal you will always be disappointed.

Work for a local candidate you can support for now.

If you accept anything you may not be disappointed , in fact HOW WOULD YOU KNOW!

There comes a time when one must take a stand or follow along.

Some have seen enough to know that now is a TIME!

I am not talking ideal, but acceptable, the bar has been raised , the last 30 years was not good enough,that's all.

Quote:

If you accept anything you may not be disappointed

I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

The problem goes back much farther than 30 years.

First - REAGAN WAS AWESOME!

Second - Gen, they hear you in Great Britain & France AND have acted upon your wishes! Via Yahoo Finance:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Strikes-in....

Third - SECESSION is a REAL threat to modern-day USA. It took perhaps 40+ years for it to become reality in 1860. SECESSION is just getting started this go-around. We are truly at least 2 different nations with totally different set of values( one set has morals & wants economic freedom the other set has social mores and wants to be coddled by the Federal Gov't.). Obviously - these 2 sets of values are totally incompatible and a "divorce" is on the horizon....If the Conservative States Secede then the Liberal States won't do anything to SAVE THE USA or will be too impotent to DO any type of military takeover since they basically won't have a military. If Liberal States Secede then there might be a Civil War to preserve The Union....BUT, then the IslamoFascist States of the World will quickly invade the Liberal faction of States and will easily conquer them since there will be no military to protect the Liberl States. This might all happen with Armegeddon as well as the All-out War on Israel since the USA won't be around to defend Israel and will be concentrated on its own possible Civil War....

(wrong thread - sorry :-))

Kwl88 wrote..

one set has morals & wants economic freedom the other set has social mores and wants to be coddled by the Federal Gov't

So just exactly how large is the set of people willing to give up old age welfare and socialized medicine?

Quote:

So just exactly how large is the set of people willing to give up old age welfare and socialized medicine?

That is one of the $64 trillion dollar questions isn't it! Who knows exactly? & of course how in flex and in what direction will the numbers of this populous go towards - increase or decrease in the next few years/decades?

Wis/min wrote..

The problem goes back much farther than 30 years.

Take a look at national debt charts that Karl so frequently brings up. The problem starts around 1980, and goes ballistic from there onward. Reagan never cut the size of government; under him government (especially the Pentagon) exploded in size -- and did so much faster than revenue growth (which brought about the chronic deficits and the ballooning national debt.)

Another thing that starts with Reagan, is deregulation and "financial innovation", together with massive consolidations in the finance industry. The S&L crisis was a direct consequence, and all the bubbles and fraud that followed (including Internet, Derivatives, Housing) were just more of the same.

Yet another thing that starts with Reagan, is the "free trade" movement that brought down tariffs and enabled profitable outsourcing of American manufacturing (and eventually, R&D as well.) That was a beginning of the end -- just one of many beginnings that originated with Reagan.

Reagan busted unions, and together with outsourcing, this begins the great decline of organized labor. As a result, wages stagnate, real demand erodes, productive jobs are lost, the middle class shrivels, wealth disparities shoot the moon, and we turn into a "service economy" -- which is just a euphemism for Ponzi economy. Now we're just beginning to reap the "benefits"...

In U.S., Reagan is falsely credited with bringing down the Soviet Union, but that's just nationalist propaganda BS. Gorbachev had a lot more to do with it than Reagan, and the Soviet Union was doing a very fine job disintegrating under the burden of its own bureaucracy, mismanagement, and corruption, quite without any American help. Gorbachev tried to save it, but miscalculated the scope and pace of reforms, and ended up only accelerating the demise. Unfortunately, China has learned from that experience, and adopted a more gradualistic approach that appears to work much better...

Then there are all the Latin American adventures, including Iran-Contra, the purges of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, you name it -- none of them exactly admirable in either intent or execution. How many Latin American Fascist dictators graduated from U.S. training programs, and enjoyed full support of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department? Sure, it was us vs. the Soviets, but our methods have defined us all over the world, and we're still reaping the blowback. Who built up and boosted Saddam? Who built up and practically invented the Afghani Mujaheddin (precursors of the Taliban)? And good lord, shall we recall "Star Wars"? Ah, the good ole RayGun...

Then there's his campaign against AIDS -- or rather, against recognition of AIDS as a communicable disease, and against federal funding of AIDS-related medical research. So much death, so much tragedy on his watch -- much of it that could have been prevented. But that's "morals" for you.

Really, there's not much that gives me reason to admire Reagan. He gave nice speeches, and looked good on stage. But what do you expect: he was an actor. He made you feel good, while his administration played Machiavellian imperial games on the global stage, and domestically transferred power from you toward Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. If anything, he was just a spokesman -- a sock puppet -- for the real people in charge, who normally prefer to remain hidden behind the scenes.

But I don't suppose I can convince you of anything. Judging by the political talking points you bring up, looks like you're an ideologue of quite a high caliber.

Quote:

Reagan never cut the size of government

He was screwed by Tip O'neil who made promises that were not kept. Budget cuts were promised by a Democrat leadership that never materialized so of course government grew.

Look it up.

We all wanted smaller government including Reagan.

The decline of organized labor was a good thing.

Are you a union shill?

very good
if someone wrote that in forum 2 years ago you'd consider it tin foil.
but still its a lot of good writing

I like when I only get the rebuttal to a person I've ignored. That's a good post 2b.

Excellent posts, 2b!

2b's summary is certainly how I remember the Reagan years.

Exactly.

The left/right rose-colored glasses are too dark for some to see through...

Fidgit, I'v read Gone with the Wind, though it was maybe five years ago. It's a pretty amazing book, and Scarlett O'Hara may be one of the most interesting heroines (or heroes, for that matter) ever created.

My God, that woman was proactive! Certainly she was spoiled, supercilious, shallow, and unscrupulous. If it weren't a work of fiction, I suppose this would prove that a willingness to make a decision, and to get up off your lazy ass and act, however wrongheadedly, is a virtue that covers many sins.

Maybe it proves that anyway.

Paying for unions was not worth the increased demand. Unions are the reason we lost the steel industry and auto industry. The greenie weenies and the lawyers took care of the rest. The people who got out of Soviet rule were thankful to Reagan, I could give a crap about Iran-Contra. The reason we started to see the debt increase is partly the increased number of people going on social security and medicare and the fact that housing was inflating faster. The only thing that does***** me off about Reagan is that he pushed our retirement age back (I suppose so we could leave all the union babies retirements untouched). Unfortunately, we will have to see a collapse to get rid of all this raw overhead. None of them have the right to retire at 50 and collect 3x more than I do in retirement. It's such a conflict of interest.

Standby wrote..

Unions are the reason we lost the steel industry and auto industry.

I don't understand how anyone can honestly believe that. What would have to be the wage paid to American workers, so that they could successfully compete with workers in China and Mexico? Remember, China and Mexico have all the same high-tech robot-assisted assembly lines: we exported them there! The only real differential in terms of cost, is just the cost of labor. Oh, and the working conditions, and the hours worked, and pollution controls. But even if we turned our own lands into the sort of poisoned cesspool China has become, and even if we housed our workers in Gulag-like slave labor camps like China does, we still couldn't compete unless we also paid our workers less per day than it costs to buy a hamburger at McDonald's.

Quote:

None of them have the right to retire at 50 and collect 3x more than I do in retirement. It's such a conflict of interest.

When it comes to government employees, I agree -- to an extent. (I'll draw the line at extremely hazardous jobs, such as being a soldier, an astronaut, an inner city beat cop, or a spy on U.S. payroll...) However, private employees have the right to retire however they wish, pursuant to any contractual obligation agreed upon by their employer. If that means the CEO doesn't get paid 10,000x more than the average worker at the company, that's just tough cookies for the CEO. But these days, we like our robber barons much better than ourselves. So we're getting everything we've asked for, and then some.

So the French can run strikes, and a few other countries in Europe, but not here in the US!? I'd bet money that the left/commies/regime zombies/unions here, if put to the test, could and would organize and strike.

Certainly the entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and the silent majority of the US would like nothing more than to be left alone to do business and pursue happiness and one of the least things they would have wanted to do is organize and strike - but when is enough enough. For some it's now and for others who declare that it wouldn't make a difference it may be later, or never.

I would be very interested in hearing the response from small and medium sized business owners/employers as to when it would make sense for them to say 'enough' and be ready do close shop for a few days in protest to the increasingly overbearing, over taxing, over controlling regime.