BF2S Forums Palin Edging to 2012 Run, Says She's Willing to 'Give It a Shot'

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

LOL...  I have to admit...  I have a number of friends and coworkers that could be considered redneck, and many of them are honest, trustworthy people.

I just have to rag on them sometimes.  I did go to a "white trash" party recently though.  That was pretty fun.

Southerners are nice. The pace is a bit slow for me, but once a friend, they will lay down their life for you or bend over backwards to help you out.

A lot of them are.  Not all, but yeah, I've heard things are quite different up in places like NYC.

People just have a shell built up around them up here. You're in such close proximity to so many people every day that it's sort of a coping device. Once you get past that shell they're just like anyone else. That 'shell' is what turns tourists from other parts of the country off to us though. Shrug.

Harmor, which administration encouraged small banks to expand as quickly as they could, take on excessive risks, cause a housing bubble, and created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to backstop their risky behavior? Which administration then pulled the rug out from under them, forced them to divest their holdings of high yield bonds (junk bonds), prosecuted Michael Milken, and caused the recession that ended George Bush Sr.'s presidency?

I doubt he could bring himself to say it tbh

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Preference voting is fine, providing they aren't transferable by the candidate - thats the problem.

Why is that even part of the system?  It just seems so crazy.

I could only think that it's because people really cbf'd numbering 100+ boxes.

Why they don't let you just preference vote parties I have no idea.

Ill bet a dollar harmor doesnt come back to this thread

Harmor wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Ill bet a dollar harmor doesnt come back to this thread

I'm still here.  Just nothing worthy to reply to that all.

really?  G@lt gave a well thought out response

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

When Reagan lowered taxes in the early 80s the revenue to the Government doubled.  The problem we had was that the Democrats (i.e. Tip O'neal and friends), spent faster than we generated in taxes.

The revenue doubled because the interest rate was sitting at 18% and everyone was making money hand over fist. That has more to do with Volcker than anything and it did have long term consequences, especially after they put Milken in jail.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The tax cuts in the 80s weren't the prime mover in the economy, Michael Milken and Lewis Ranieri pushed the 80s economy. Warren Buffett pushed the 80s. High Yield Bonds (Junk Bonds) fueled the 80s, not tax cuts.

Tax cuts spurred economic growth.  Only a small portion of the economy is regulated by the stock market.  Much of the conomy is by consumer spending (todays is 70% of our economy).

Again, the interest rate was 18%. People had a lot more money to spend.

JohnG@lt wrote:

This leads into point #2. Having a strong military leads to its use overseas. Why do we need a military larger than what is necessary to defend our borders? Why should we waste money on something we'll never get a return on?

We spend so much money on the military so we don't have to use it.  Basically we are so military advanced to a potential enemy that they don't even try to mess with us.  The U.S.S.R. at the time was very strong and had influnce around the world so we had to have an even strong military.

Spend money so you don't have to use it... that's so ass backwards it's not even funny. The USSR was a shell with outdated and shoddy equipment. All Reagan did was hand an open checkbook to the defense industry as thanks for helping to get him elected.

The ramp up in military spending basically crippled the U.S.S.R. economy as they tried under Communism to keep up and eventually lead to the downfall of the U.S.S.R.

Myth.

You know countries in Europe and Japan are able to have a weak militaries (Japan can't), because we protect them and thus is a primary reason why they can spend so much on Socialism.  Recall all those missiles we installed that Russia is so pissed about?  You can't do that if you have a weak military.

So stop supporting them. Quit being the martyr.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's certainly not an investment. The only people that benefit are the defense industry who live off the government tit and suck away far more than welfare moms.

If you live in fear that your country can easily be invaded then what kind of life can you live?  A weak defense didn't help you keep friendly neighbors who wanted to take you over?  We only need to give as an example Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

I don't live in fear. I never will. We're separated by two oceans from anything that is remotely a threat, either today or tomorrow. It's rather easy to track shipping and no country in the world has enough shipping to invade us.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Point #3: You don't even know what limited government is.

Limited government is a government that doesn't have overreaching laws and regulations beyond what is necessary to keep us safe and opperating efficiently.  Anything more is just social engineering (see our tax code for an example of that).

Right, but having our government as a platform for religious outreach and prayer in school is not social engineering.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You want to keep a strong military, which is part of the government and necessarily makes it bigger. You want to expand government by turning it into a ministry.

I think you're misunderstanding about my comment about Military Outreach Ministry.  I don't ant to turn the military into a church...I just will support non-demoninational charities that serve military families.

Why do military families need your outreach? They don't. They get taken care of by the VA and by SGLI.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Point #4: You want low taxes, but again, you want a strong military.

Yes and yes.  Lowering taxes not only stimulates the economy but it also generates more money to the government in taxes, which always puzzled me why Liberials didn't want more money going to the government?

Because it only works when you lower taxes from a high point to a middle point. Going from the middle to a lower point kills tax revenue, it does not increase it. We are already at one of the lowest levels of taxation since the income tax was instituted. Lowering the tax rate would not increase tax revenue.

JohnG@lt wrote:

What should be cut? Are you going to say 'oh, sorry, you paid into Medicare and Social Security all your life but we're going to cut the program now, worry about your own retirement'. Good luck winning on that platform.

You're right about that because everyone since the `New Deal` was promised this money when they retire.  What we need to do is wheen people off this pozie scheme, Social Security, like this:

1) Each year for the next 10 years people can opt 10% of what they pay now into a savings account of Treasury bills or into their 401k.
2) People 54-64 can write off their payments as a tax credit once they turn 65 or take a graduated scale less when they do turn 65.  I.e. 64 year olds would get 90% when then turn 65.  63 year olds get 80% etc...
3) People 65+ can instead take their payments as a tax credit against their income or any part of that (i.e. somoene only make $5,000 from interest income could decide to reduce their SSI by $5,000 that year so they pay $0 in taxes, but get $5,000 less in SSI).

As for Medicare we need to take healthcare out of the employeers' hands and put it back into ours.  We need to make health insurance like car insurance, portable, and easy to get instead of fining people who don't buy it.

We need to limit Medicare to those truely needy.

Obamacare is actually doing a good thing with Medicare by reducing payments to Doctors.  In some parts of the country Hospitals won't even take Medicare.


SSI and Medicare basically came about because a shift in our society where its now the Governemnts role to take care of people instead of your immediate family.  Before all these programs, shock, people helped their parents and grandparents out.  We didn't need to have 2 incomes either just to get by.

Lawl, idiot. You're keeping the programs, and government involvement in peoples retirement, you're just changing the way its done. It's still invasive and a crutch for idiots.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Oh, I know, you'll cut the pork barrel spending that makes up less than 1% of the budget. Always a good target.

Discretionary spending is more than 1% of the budget.  I think you're talking about earmarks?  That's where Politians bribe other Politians with our money.

Wrong.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Government employee unions shouldn't be made illegal, they should be unsponsored by the government. Big difference. You can't outlaw unions, what would be the charge? Are you going to ban people from talking around the water cooler too? They might be subversives or planning a strategy to get their salaries raised. Can't have that. No. I don't like unions but banning them outright is as stupid as killing SS and Medicare.

Did you know you are required to pay union dues even if you're not in the union?  That's extortion and thus the reason why I think public employee unions are illegal.

Not in Right to Work states.

JohnG@lt wrote:

School choice. Cool. Not very conservative of you though. Generally, people move into a town because they like the school district. Please grant school choice though, I'll move into a shitty school district with lower property taxes and send my kids to the better school. Win/win for me.

Assuming that school has room in their school and that your kid isn't disruptive then sure you as a parent should have a choice where your kid goes to school.  Actually I think you should also get a voucher equal to 1/2 the money spent per pupil that you can use to put your kid into a private school.

Yeah whatever. So you'd socialize and subsidize private school education. Swell.

so whats yours?

Harmor wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Ill bet a dollar harmor doesnt come back to this thread

I'm still here.  Just nothing worthy to reply to that all.

No? Ok. You ever heard of the Savings & Loan Crisis? I'm sure you have, it's part of pop culture. Well, pop history anyway.

It starts in the 1970s when stagflation hit thrifts (banks which deal almost solely with home loans and are government sponsored and backed). Paul Volcker came in under Reagan and immediately jacked the interest rate up to about 17% in order to curb the inflation rate which dominated the 1970s. Well, by jacking up the interest rate, he also jacked up the interest rate these thrifts had to pay out on deposits. These thrifts, which were locked into non-variable rate long term mortgages, were hemorrhaging money due to taking in 5% in interest on previous loans, and paying out 17% in interest on deposits. Now, with the advent of mortgage brokers, commercial banks stepping into the fray, and mortgage backed securities, thrifts were obsolete. Instead of killing the thrift industry altogether like he should've done, the Reagan administration prolonged, and increased the governments exposure to the mortgage industry. First he deregulated the thrifts, which by itself is fine, but not when coupled with what happened next... Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created to backstop the thrifts and give them a seller for the mortgages they originated. So, faced with either growing or dying, and encouraged by the Reagan administration to grow as quickly as possible 'for the good of the nation', the banks started originating loans faster than they ever had in the past. They created bubbles in booming states like Arizona, Florida, Nevada, California and Texas (sound familiar?).

Now, all well and good, the banks were making money, right? They're offering high interest rates, people are getting their dream homes, and everyone is profiting handsomely through the roaring 80s. One problem though. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had been created to backstop the thrifts, and which were buying up these loans as quickly as possible, was taking all the risk. The US Government: i.e. the US taxpayer, was taking all the risk. Well, when these bubbles collapsed, so did the thrifts. 747 of them to be precise. Who picked up the tab? The US taxpayer via the FDIC and Fannie/Freddie.

What's the point? Reagan gets a nice rap for overseeing the roaring 80s, and it's mostly the tax rate being lowered that is seen as the cause for the boom. Hardly so. Reagan was a market interventionist, the same as the Democrats are. He was no fiscal conservative. A fiscal conservative would attempt to remove as much governmental interference in the market as possible, he instead added more. The actions that his administration took in the 1980s were repeated by Clinton and Bush leading up to the crash in 2007. This time we simply crashed harder and with bigger banks involved.

I understand your point about the deregulations in the 1980 and 1982 bills that were passed by a Democratic Congress and approved by Reagan at the time that lead to the S&L Crisis started in the 1987 Stock Market crash - I remember it all.  He gave into these programs to get the Democrats to go along with his spending bills to secure the country - not what I wanted, but Congress was controlled by them and he conceded on this to get their support.

I didn't agree with Saint Ronald at the time to go with the Democrats plans on basically getting every liberial voter a home whether they could afford it or not. 

Clinton (minority program for housing program in 1998), and Bush (house afforability program in 2005), made the same mistakes too.  Its a bipartisan problem where politicians believe by laxing lending rules they can get votes.  That's the Ruling Class for you.

You happy now?  :-)

I'm just sick of the Reagan revisionist history and the idea that Reaganomics even existed. He was an idiot and an interventionist, he was just eloquent, kind of like our current president.

eleven bravo wrote:

he was also senile and let everyone who worked under him do his thinking for him

Which is why crony capitalism became so rampant under his watch. The yuppies were all scratching each others back at the publics expense. Reagans administration is when the well heeled looters had free reign.

Greed is good! It's the only concept that motivates people to reach higher. As long as it isn't extracted via fraud or theft there is nothing in the world wrong with greed.

Reagan did exactly 2 of the 4 points of 'his' agenda. He expanded government spending, he reduced taxes, he increased government regulation, and he certainly controlled the money supply (which I disagree with vehemently). Blame Democrats all you want, but Reagan as some economic superman is a myth that is completely blown out of the water by anyone with half an economic brain. He was in fact the ultimate establishment figure and 'proponent of the ruling class'. Keep trotting out his corpse though, it will motivate the unenlightened masses.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Greed is good! It's the only concept that motivates people to reach higher. As long as it isn't extracted via fraud or theft there is nothing in the world wrong with greed.

Reagan did exactly 2 of the 4 points of 'his' agenda. He expanded government spending, he reduced taxes, he increased government regulation, and he certainly controlled the money supply (which I disagree with vehemently). Blame Democrats all you want, but Reagan as some economic superman is a myth that is completely blown out of the water by anyone with half an economic brain. He was in fact the ultimate establishment figure and 'proponent of the ruling class'. Keep trotting out his corpse though, it will motivate the unenlightened masses.

I guess only Liberials can be englightened...everyone else is dumb?

Chew on this:



The '80s' pull us out of terrible economic situation while bringing the downfall of the U.S.S.R.  But of course having a strong military is contrary to Liberials because that means you will only bully your adversaries - everyone should be equal in this respect so we can be forced to get along and not spread our exceptionalism, right?


I love it when Liberals lambaste the intelligence of Conservatives, that basically means they will no longer discuss the topic at hand and will instead demonize their opponent - like calling them racists or a fearmonger or what have you.

Lets see what happens in November when all these `unenlightened masses`, as you refer to them, vote.

Last edited by Harmor (2010-09-19 10:35:48)

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Greed is good! It's the only concept that motivates people to reach higher. As long as it isn't extracted via fraud or theft there is nothing in the world wrong with greed.

Reagan did exactly 2 of the 4 points of 'his' agenda. He expanded government spending, he reduced taxes, he increased government regulation, and he certainly controlled the money supply (which I disagree with vehemently). Blame Democrats all you want, but Reagan as some economic superman is a myth that is completely blown out of the water by anyone with half an economic brain. He was in fact the ultimate establishment figure and 'proponent of the ruling class'. Keep trotting out his corpse though, it will motivate the unenlightened masses.

I guess only Liberials can be englightened...everyone else is dumb?

Chew on this:

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/681/ … e76564.gif

The '80s' pull us out of terrible economic situation while bringing the downfall of the U.S.S.R.  But of course having a strong military is contrary to Liberials because that means you will only bully your adversaries - everyone should be equal in this respect so we can be forced to get along and not spread our exceptionalism, right?


I love it when Liberals lambaste the intelligence of Conservatives, that basically means they will no longer discuss the topic at hand and will instead demonize their opponent - like calling them racists or a fearmonger or what have you.

Lets see what happens in November when all these `unenlightened masses`, as you refer to them, vote.

I'm not calling all conservatives unintelligent, I'm calling you unintelligent. You've never shown the ability to do anything more than mouth the words you are supposed to. You fly the Red Team flag. It's who you are. It's all you understand.