History will reveal itself in due course

[Rudey]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I hear there was this guy who was president from 1992-2000 or so. What was his name again? He did something with some sort of surplus.

Really? What did he do?

And outsourcing is awful people. I mean so what if we sent unproductive jobs abroad while the only thing keeping us at the forefront of the global economy was the high tech jobs that were then produced?

The foreign policy under this administration is good. It is certainly better than that criminal Carter. The economic policies are now a joke. If you're a fiscal conservative you're only choice is the Republican party because there are 10-15 congressmen who hold the same views. The best summary of the economic views of both parties was on Meet the Press this morning:

Democrats increase the spending of government and increase taxes to pay for it.
Republicans increase the spending of government and ask the next generation to pay for it.

On the issue of economics, it's no longer an issue of who has the best policies, but who will screw up the least. What a great situation.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I appreciate the lesson, but my minor is in economics. I agree that outsourcing is not necessarily a negative. Those who can most efficiently produce the work, should, and there’s generally a net gain because of that. But it matters a whole lot to the textile worker who is without a job and isn’t provided the opportunity to retrain.

Quite simply, the Reagan deficits won us the cold war. We outspent the soviets. But at what cost? Are we that much safer? I'd argue the world is just as dangerous, just without the obvious, easily identifiable anxiety the cold-war duality created.

I didn’t cite sources - because I really don’t care that much and posting/arguing/replying to hoosier is like arguing with a zealot - someone who does not possess the intelligence or capability to debate in an objective fashion. You can tell - he always posts controversial articles, or one-sided articles, and then rarely if ever posts during the follow up posts/debate.

So I took the bait and decided to post something as one-sided as he does. I don’t know why I do it, but I guess I am hoping that something will click in his reptilian brain and make him realize that most of us 1) don’t care for his opinion (not that he cares if we care - cause he’s selfish like that) and 2) and that contrary to what he has openly expressed on GC, that we are not these blind, mindless children who have all been indoctrinated by the liberal elite in academia (its pathetic to still buy into that argument, don’t you think?) and aren’t capable of forming our own thoughts. Like we sit around waiting for his ruminations or something and he does this out of some twisted paternalism on his part.

Pathetic really.

Let's discuss - not call names.

Or just feel free to ignore future posts.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I hear there was this guy who was president from 1992-2000 or so. What was his name again? He did something with some sort of surplus.

Yes, after the Republicans got control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in about 40 years, tax cuts led to more federal income (as expected always), some limits on spending, and a balanced budget.

Clinton, of course, took all credit for this, and my friends in the media wing of the Democratic Party (also known as the willing accomplises) piled on the praises.

In actuallity, though, the real figures show that the deficit increased in real dollars every year from 1992 thru 2000 - and unfortunately continue thru 2005.

[James]

I don't intend to be partisan here at all . . but the republicans have the House, Senate and White House . . and I don't see the dramatic changes towards smaller government, more government accountability (spending) and much lower taxes for the middle class that they have been preaching about for years.

And truly there is no excuse at this point because you almost can't get any more control over the governbment than they have.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by James
I don't intend to be partisan here at all . . but the republicans have the House, Senate and White House . . and I don't see the dramatic changes towards smaller government, more government accountability (spending) and much lower taxes for the middle class that they have been preaching about for years.

And truly there is no excuse at this point because you almost can't get any more control over the governbment than they have.

The Republicans have the control. Unfortunately, the conservatives don't have control. Some Republicans (think the guy from Alaska who is Senate Finance Comm. chr.) love to spend, and only talk about cutting back.

Hopefully - in '06 and '08 - more conservatives will be elected.

[James]

The whole word conservative confuses me .. . it seems that today conservative means people that want to control the way you live.

Whereas i had been taught that conservatives were the people that didn't interfere with the way you live, and were in favor of restricted government.

Originally posted by hoosier
The Republicans have the control. Unfortunately, the conservatives don't have control. Some Republicans (think the guy from Alaska who is Senate Finance Comm. chr.) love to spend, and only talk about cutting back.

Hopefully - in '06 and '08 - more conservatives will be elected.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by hoosier
The Republicans have the control. Unfortunately, the conservatives don't have control. Some Republicans (think the guy from Alaska who is Senate Finance Comm. chr.) love to spend, and only talk about cutting back.

Hopefully - in '06 and '08 - more conservatives will be elected.

James, that was until the gays threatened the family unit.

Now, the gloves are off, and God's chosen party is fighting back.

and I hope you know me well enough to know that is nowhere near serious, although there are people that really believe that shit

[hoosier]

Originally posted by James
The whole word conservative confuses me .. . it seems that today conservative means people that want to control the way you live.

Whereas i had been taught that conservatives were the people that didn't interfere with the way you live, and were in favor of restricted government.

The Republican tent, like the Dem tent, has many rooms, including one for religious nuts - those are the ones who want to control the way you live, and make sure you don't have more fun than they do.

The religious nuts have the ability to get on TV and in the newspapers at will, and the TV/newsp. love to show these nuts.

I'd compare the Republican nuts to the Democrat nuts (the Michael Moore, Soros, MoveOn.org, Dean, Kerry room in their tent), but the Dem nuts are currently in control.

[33girl]

In this instance hoosier is right. The religious right nuts do not represent the majority of the Republican party, they're just the ones who won't shut up.

[Rudey]

The religious right is more Democrat than Republican in their beliefs and values and have the history of party association to prove it.

Now they are trying to push for environmental conservation.

-Rudey