GOP candidates 'aren't serious about economic issues'
By Steve Benen Tuesday Oct 09, 2007 7:25amThe WaPo's Steven Pearlstein had the spot-on response to yesterday's debate for the Republican presidential field:
To hear it from the Republican presidential hopefuls, the only way for the party to win back the trust of voters on economic issues is to start telling the truth.
Well, fellas, what are you waiting for?
Instead, for two hours yesterday, the nine white men who would be president were each peddling the Big Lie that the only way to ensure economic growth is by cutting all the taxes ever created -- and when you're finished with that, cutting them some more....
It is becoming clear, not just from this and previous debates but also from their speeches and position papers, that the leading Republican candidates aren't serious about economic issues.
That's true, but I have a follow-up question: are they serious about any issues?
Login or Register to post comments.
If they cut taxes, are they gonna cut their over-inflated paychecks too?
Any serious candidate would IMMEDIATELY announce:
(a) cut military budget by 25%
(b) reverse Bush tax cut for millionaires
(c) raise corporate income tax back to approx. 38% rate during Clinton years (from 0%-9% rate today)
(d) tax hedge funds at 35% rate instead of 15% (increase revenue $6 billion +)
(e) start taxing ALL income above $97,000 for social security
Ahh... the flawed vodoo economics principal
And because they aren't serious about the economy, they are going to lose the White House in '08. Oh, and the war just might have something to do with it too. And also the fact that each of these candidates (Paul being an exception) is worthless.
acctually, eliminate income tax and dramatically raise service taxes. If you want to live wealthy, you will pay for it with the lofty service taxes.
"The nine white men"
aka Ron Paul and the 8 dwarfs.
And on issues of health insurance, GOP CANDIDATES, STUNG BY ‘SCHIP’, RESPOND WITH ‘SCHIAVO-IP’
I don't like them.
They want to give my income tax money to the Private Feral Reserve System.
oh...Kucinich for President!
I disagree, Ron Paul was spot on but everyone else was clueless
Peace @ 2:
I happen to agree with post 100%, but I would add lets get taxes back to the good old 50's era all these Republicans seem so fond of. You would hear howls of outrage like never before.
The only thing they're serious about is Hillary Clinton. Because of her polarizing effect, they all think they have a chance to win the presidency despite all the other factors that would seem to indicate the Republicans have no chance in the upcoming election. And I agree. Hillary vs. [Any Republican] is a toss up.
I would say the only thing they are serious about is keeping the Iraq occupation alive and inheriting the windfall.
You know, I'd be all in favor of mindlessly cutting taxes if it magically worked the way Reagan and his devotees seem to think they do. However, reality has a funny way of dispelling lies and myths. And even though most reputable economists have demonstrated that wanton tax cuts for the wealthy do not "trickle down," the true believers keep peddling the same crap. Even as America under-invests in its people and infrastructure.
America is a great nation and will withstand the years of economic mismanagement by Republicans ... to a point. But, when enough Americans realize that they are not even getting the most basic delivery of government services as the richest ten percent get richer, the GOP will be out of business. Sure, you'll still have Newt and other crackpots still preaching the Supply-Side Gospel. But they will have become the deserved Fringe.
Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 4:
Rp is just as worthless as the rest, he has an R next to his name.
One trick pony
They're only serious about winning elections. But they're so focused on winning that they studiously ignore every other aspect of this very real world we live in. As a result, after they win an election, the only thing they know how to do with power is use it to win the next election, not how to manage the many other aspects of reality a government needs to manage. So we are left with a war they started because they needed to change the subject in the 2002 elections, but that they don't know how to end five years later. We're left with an umanageable national debt and balance of payments/weak dollar problem because they gave away the needed revenue stream to please their political contributors. We're left with a foreclosure crisis because they stopped regulating home financing to please other political contirbutors. We're left with an American gulag because that projects toughness to the electorate, however much it violates both common sense and common decency. We're left with a Justice Department more loaded with their political aparatchiks than the old KGB was with Communists.
If you read farther down the short article you come to this little beauty:
"Given the competition, it is easy to understand why Giuliani is leading this sad pack of candidates. In policy terms, he's offered nothing particularly original or detailed. But his basic message -- that economic policy should be built around the self-reliance and entrepreneurial success of the American people -- is a soothing antidote to the relentless negativism of the Democratic candidates."
So Republicans have nothing at all to say about economics but Democrats are somehow negative because they do. Interesting concept. The Republican philosophy is basic economic Darwinism which is quite funny considering they don't believe in creationism, except of course, when it comes to money and then it's quite different.
MK @ 12:
MK @ 12:
Pardon my ignorance, but I just don't get it when it comes to opposition of paying taxes. Where do these people think we get the money to run the country? Is there a magical, invisible, money tree somewhere I don't know about? I understand that they want to cut all "social" services, but there are services we as a Nation depend on that are indeed "socialized" like, for a small example, road maintenance and street lights that we we take for granted as just "being there", that depend on taxes for revenue. Without taxes we would all be on our own for even police service. Imagine if you called 911 for help and they refused to respond because you weren't paid up? Whether we pay taxes for our taken for granted services or pay outright for them, they still need to be funded. And then there's the humongous military budget, which is more waste than anything else we pay for out of our tax dollars, but there seems to be no problem with that. I can't imagine just living on credit and never paying my bills, so why do these supposedly "learned wise leaders" (said with all sarcasm) even think this is an option? It's pure shameful that the current flock of presidential hopefuls is the best we can come up with out of the millions of people that live in this country.
Go ahead, make my day. Eliminate all taxes. I'll take my chances.
Cheney/Halliburton need government spending more than I do.
Peace @ 2:
I never understood why Democrats did not choose (b) and/or (e) to expand SCHIP. Talk about ceding the moral high-ground!
If we're going to invest in the people of Iraq and their infrastructure, we are going to do likewise here ... starting with our children.
And to you Fat-cats that have grown richer during the Bush years: You have not been asked to sacrifice your luxury as you were during the last great war for humanity (if we assume Bush's Iraq War of choice is comparable to WWII). But, now we are asking you to give up your tax cut in order to pay for expanded healthcare access for children.
Did the Dems do any such thing? Hardly.
Instead, the idiots went after the poor with their stupid funding ala a cigarette tax increase. Who exactly is running the Democratic show over there? Bozo the Clown. I don't think they could be any more inept if they tried.
Bush was elected in 2000 because he promised a tax cut. The greedy Americans passed over all his shortcomings and voted for him in order to get a little extra cash. Those assholes on that stage yesterday were trying to use the same damned carrot for bait that bush used.
Pay as you go. Did these idiots ever think of that? Face the fucking fact that we have a mind-blowing deficit that has to be addressed. What are we going to do, continue to sell our debt to Asia and let our children bear our ineptness? First candidate - Republican or Democrat - that tells us that we have to feel some pain, wins my vote. I'm tired of sweeping our bulging deficit problem under the carpet. Hurt a little now, or hurt a LOT later.
"Private Feral Reserve System"?
Ruthless People @ 6:
FredThompson=Dopey
katsmeow @ 17:
they borrow the money from a private bank called the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank creates money out of thin air.
SELECT A CANDIDATE FOR 2008
The following is an interesting exercise.... You answer a few questions then click the "find your candidate button" and the program selects the candidate who's position on the issues is most like your own... You may be surprised at what you find... I was.... Click the link below....
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
- - - - - - -
there are some interesting positional similarities between Kucinich and Ron Paul. There reasonings differ, but the positions... well, judge for yourself.
There is only one Republican candidate that has the correct answers and the media keep drowning him out. That candidate is Ron Paul. We have to return to Constitutional law. When this happens, you get rid of the Federal Reserve as well as the I.R.S. You replace the I.R.S. with a flat consumptive tax and then back the falling dollar with an assett that the world has recognized as a true store of value and which the Consititution called for. That is both gold and silver.
The system worked very well prior to 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. Then inflation and deflation rose and fell by only 1 to 2%. As Thompson said last evening, our great grand children and their children will never be able to pay back the debt that is being created through the creation of phoney fiat money that is printed at the whim of the Federal Reserve.
The plain fact is that Ron Paul has been the only candidate that has offered a real change and a new start for this once great nation. If we continue on this path, the US will become the facsist state that Aaron Russo predicited would happen. We are well on our way if things don't change and soon!
It's the old "trickle down economics." The more you give to those at the top of the economic chain, the more will "trickle down" to those at the bottom of the chain. Guess who likes this theory.
How about spending money wisely? Are no bid contracts the best way to spend taxpayers dollars. How about having an economic plan, short and long term? How about a real budget based on reality? How many bridges need replacement or repair? How much should schools get to produce the desired effects and so that teachers don't have to spend their own dollars buying supplies? How about a broad discussion of exactly what we are doing in the foreign policy arena? Are we getting the desired results? Do we really want to continue to be the policemen of the world, or would taxpayers be better served by providing everyone with health care? Both the executive branch of government and the legislative branch seem to enact stop-gap legislation to solve whatever problem is staring them in the face. What about a plan?
Actually, all that would mean putting partisanship aside and working for the betterment of all people in the country, not just the corporate elite. It would require statesmen not politicians.
McCain's answer to the economic questions posed by Ron Paul in yesterday's debate were sickening and treasonous. In short, the mega profits of the transnationals are good for all of us (all of us meaning all of THEM). His idea of a "robust economy" is CEO salaries up 400% while we add a million per year to the poverty roles. If I didn't hear this from so many of these greedy bastards, I'd say he has brain mets.
BTW Conagra just poisoned us again. Like I need to tell anyone here, but avoid Banquet pot pies.
Weaseldog @ 24:
yep, and two presidents who tried to end that monopoly were assassinated.
Andrew @ 26:
I could use Kucinich as a better benchmark of what the American people need. A libertarian masquerading as a repug is not trustworthy, IMHO. There should be no need for a hidden agenda.
Every issue, every single issue Americans have a problem with are covered by Dr. Ron Paul, but MSM still thinks that just not including his name in these polarizing hit pieces will stop his supporters. Dr. Ron Paul will be our next president. The only thing preventing it is another CIA assassination like they did to JFK and RFK.
Repubs are always quick to grab and hold onto "fiscal responsibility" as if they own it, while sticking the Dems with "tax and spend" and no one seems to call them on it. I'll bet the majority of Americans still believe that the Repubs are the more RESPONSIBLE party; when what they ARE responsible for is putting us in big debt for decades to come! How can we change this perception? Maybe it can't be changed.
My favorite delusional soundbite from the debates:
Romney: While the rest of the country is doing great, Michigan is suffering "a one-state recession."
Earth to Romney... it's not just Michigan.
what got my interest is that they kept talking about the American economy and not the economy of Americans. There really is a difference. While the economy is doing well as long as the numbers are juggled, people aren't doing well at all.
Personal debt is at an all time high, 75% of workers are living from paycheck to paycheck, we are spending more for housing then in any time in history, and job stability is nonexistent. But the stock market continues to break records.
When the numbers start to balance and we start to see the reality of a recession that has been going on in the lives of people, then there might be a shift in focus among the two parties. With oil going for $80.00 a barrel fuel prices are going to hit us hard in the next few months and we just may start to understand that you have to see the effect of an economy on people before you talk about the economy of a nation.
AND THE SURPRISE IS ?
patthemonkey @ 34:
It looks like gasoline has been selling at cost for a while.
To make up for the oil price hikes, the oil industry subsidies will have to be increased soon, to keep gasoline prices flat.
Warning, run-on sentence ahead...
Evidently a Free Market is one where an industry sells at cost, and the Government gifts them their profits, by borrowing from the Federal Reserve and taxing the citizenry for interest payment, all the while increasing inflation rates from excessive borrowing and spending, necessitating the increase in borrowing to cover increasing costs...
katsmeow @ 17:
There's also the practical matter of just not having enough time in the day to shop and compare individually for each and every one of these services, EVEN IF it was a good idea to privatize them all. The pencil-necks who espouse these economic ideas are theorists who have the luxury of having nothing else in the world to worry about except research.
Well, some of us have a life to live. I, for one, do not have enough time as it is to shop (smart) for the basic necessities of life, let alone these other services we usually take for granted.
Is there waste in the government system? Probably. Do they do it most efficiently? Probably not. I expect accountability, but as long as they are providing reasonably cost-effective basic services for being able to make a living - safe and clean neighborhoods; good education system; transportation infrastructure, etc., I can focus on what really matters in my life.
Now, *that* is what family values is all about.
the Arthur Laffer cult has no answer for any economic problem. They love that dear leader has added 3 trillion to the debt
When you think about it, the responses just play to the Republican base. Their calls for optimism is a veiled attack on the liberal media naysayers. Cutting taxes is a true and tested method of buying votes (it worked for Bush - twice). Calling for lower business taxes keeps the campaign cash flowing in. Leveling the trade playing field stokes nationalism, but just leads to more inflation, as if we don't have enough of that already.
It seems only Ron Paul understands the danger of fiat money to our dollar's survival and the cost of Middle East wars, not only in what it's doing to our national debt but also in the price of oil that hits our pocket books well beyond filling our fuel tanks. The impact of attacking Iran will have on the world's economy was entirely ignored by these bozos. Except for war profiteers it could be disastrous.
eLMel @ 32:
Don't be too quick to assume that. This is one former Republican who lived through the Clinton years AND the Bush II years (and Bush I and Reagan for that matter). For all the rhetoric flying about, I don't need anyone to tell me which party has been better for my wallet; and better for the overall American economy. Hint: It's not the party that rhetorically claims to own fiscal responsibility.
And, I am not alone. The level of disgust among non-theocratic Republicans is high. Besides wishing to cast off the fundamentalist religious reactionary albatros, we'd just wish the damn party would be a little more fiscally prudent and consistent. And to not always treat the government as the enemy; and the private sector always the savior.
Policy Balance is where it is at. Not mindless tax cuts. Not mindless government programs. Smart spending. Smart investing in America and its People - for the Future.
"Trickle down theory" = tax cuts for the rich so they can buy more hedge funds, hedge fund makes billions and is taxed at at a lower rate, the U.S. government issues more debt (IOU's) to China, government services get out-sourced to private companies, all government programs except the Defense Budget and Iraq is reduced!
Result: continuation of trend that top 1% grows even more wealthy and reduction in quality of life for rest of America.
When will people stop buying this Repub "kool-aid" and not vote for these liars?
Andrew @ 26:
Consumptive taxes are REGRESSIVE....they place an undue burden on the poor who have the highest marginal propensity to consume which contrary to right wing whackiness actually drives the economy affecting both rich and poor.
V V
It's not entirely true that their only answer was to cut taxes. They also, to a man, gave the response that the secret to a successful economy is to be optimistic. To sum up every response, "Don't tell the truth about problems. Smile and be cheerful, and then the problems will go away."
They all endorse, apparently, a wish-based economy.
patthemonkey @ 34:
Last time the stock market was breaking records the dollar was 120 and now it's 78...thats a 40 % haircut...adjusting the currency melt down the DOW would be at 10k.
All these rich plutocrats whining for another rate cut are basically abandoning our currency because they don't care....filling up for 80 bucks to rich people is like the average joe putting a quarter in a parking meter.
Lastly, for the gov to say inflation is running at 2 % for eternity is an insult. Look at your grocery bills, and how much you spend to fill up your gas tanks....how much was milk 5 years ago....now they tell us plasma TV's prices are falling so there is no inflation.
There are rich...and there are poor...and most if not all of the politicians lobbying for bail outs tax breaks and rate cuts are so detached from the real world, they would go into a fetal position if they had to spend 6 months not knowing how they are going to pay next months bills.....they can't relate....thus they think everything is great cause it is for them and thats all that matters to plutocrats.
THIS IS A MUST READ!
RE: Andy @ 44:
Amen!!!
eLMel @ 32:
The chart above is of total government debt outstanding. Notice a trend. Whenever a Republican gets into office, they charge the national credit card. Big time. They borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow .... and then they borrow some more.
Bonddad 4, Supply-Side 0
Any questions?
A consumption based(sales) tax does not place burden on the poor so long as certain items are exempted from the tax. For example, Massachusetts does not place sales tax on clothing or food items. The rich will have to pay tax on their $200,000 cars and $4,000,000 homes while the poor can live and not be hindered by an income tax.
5280 @ 43:
Yep. It's easy to be optimistic when you're among the top earners. Why can't poor people stop complaining and be more like rich people?
I (heart) federal reserve.
Frederick of Hollywood: "What wer're agonna have to do though is look at this as part of the total picture. Generally speaking, lower taxes and lower tax rates grow the economy. It's been proven in the 20's, during the Kennedy administration, during the Reagan administration and again during this administration"
He did not mention that during the Reagan and 'this' administration we had 'out of this world' deficits with the national debt now out in orbit.
What none of these people realize is that there is no such thing as a tax cut as long as there is a deficit, only a deferment of when the national debt will have to be paid off - by taxes of future generations.
They want to cut individual taxes and increase corporate taxes, who in turn will raise prices which will be paid by the individuals, completing the circle.
Fiftysev3n @ 48:
While true in some vapid theoretical sense, advocating consumption tax high enough to replace all income and gains taxes would kill the poor (and this country -- revolution would arrive in days). It is dishonest to suggest this somehow helps them, IMO. Clothing, food, gas, medicine, diapers, toothpaste... I mean, where do the exemptions end? We already went down that road. Flatter, 3-tier progressive income and gains taxes, with no loopholes (outside the normal mortgage etc.) are the most fair for the most people. An (imperfect) example is midpage here from Wyden: http://wyden.senate.gov/
Not to mention, in my experience poor people don't mind at all paying their share of the burden -- poor people aren't cowards, nor are poor people "hindered" by paying a % of their income if that % isn't oppressive. But when Mitt Romney with $250 million in pocket change wants to ditch capital gains taxes so Tagg, Gleek, or Bipsie or whoever can make another $250 million just for breathing my air, or Ron Paul says a giant sales tax is the answer to everything, they get pissed off.
And rightly so... I'll help you with the math: 25% of $0 income is $0. 25% of a $100 grocery bill means you get screwed for $125. If you were broke, which would anger you? (Mitt has an accountant so he probably pays $83.72 after all the loopholes are found for him.)
The point of America is to enable mobility financially, with hard work, not to keep the poor permanently devastated, and Paris Hilton permanently wealthy. We already tried that too (well, England did anyway). It also failed. It always seems to lead to inbreed retards with syphilis amongst the "nobility" too for some odd reason. The more things change...
Also, if you are saying NO tax dollars PERIOD for that service anymore, private or public, then that is something. That is the Libertarian, and we need those voices to counteract the Authoritarian jerks in power. (You can't go too far down that road, however or your country gets shanked by the bad guys.) You don't make government smaller by giving even MORE tax dollars to privatize previously public services! That is just stupid. We are doing that right now in Iraq. Like the results? Great huh? How about New Orleans? Good stuff. Privatization as a panacea to budget problems, by just assuming things will magically be more efficient is a tired and stale Republican hoax. I don't like this site, usually, and HATE the idea of pompous jackass actors spouting off (*cough-Baldwin*), but this is a clear description of the current problem with privatization if you still just can't get it: Build a Frontier, you get Cowboys
How about?
If you want to live in this country, you should help pay for it.
Everybody pays income taxes on a graduated scale, from 1% to - let's say 50%.
Companies pay no taxes (this should keep prices down) - except they get penalized for excess profits (which should entice them to keep prices low). Those not earning an income (not paying taxes) in this country are charged a sales tax for goods and services.
Publicans in Washington still think you can get a crueller and a good cup of joe for only a dime.
Out of curiosity, what is a crueller? Is it a donut that no matter how many times you dunk it you'll choke on it?
Sounds hard to swallow.
In some old western movies there was some 'doctor' who travelled from town to town selling some lotions or potions or snake oil, and his style of speaking seems to have been adopted by Romney. I felt like he is trying to sell something that is not on the up and up.
Romney's a snake oil salesman?
For me the name's a shade too close to Rommel.
The goal is to unwind the New Deal. Period. It ain't brain surgery to figure that out. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Why no comment on the BIGGEST point made in the debate..."that Social Security will no longer exist in 20 years."
ysbaddaden @ 58:
Mitt doesn't have enuf brains to sell snake oil.
The big reveal occur when Giuliani said that he cut many taxes in NYC, but "I didn't cut every tax, you can't possibly cut every tax. As I think Congressman Tancredo pointed out, you need money for police, you need money for military."
No Rudolph, if tax cuts create more revenue as you and the others said, then you could have cut every tax and NYC would have had even more money for police and military.
Whenever these guys talk about the increased revenue that has come from "the tax cuts," what they don't say is that, as Giuliani accidentally implies, there would have been much more revenue received without those tax cuts.
I have only one question then I'll go. If you cut all the taxes we pay then how will those things for the common good get paid for? Does anyone have any idea how much it costs for paving a road, purifying water, or any of the other things that our taxes pay for? How volunteer would our armed forces be without taxpayer support? Are the ones who advocate these tax cuts living a lifestyle that would support such a move? Are they able to generate their own electricity? Grow their own food? Manufacture all their needs? I hardly think that those who want taxes cut are truly self-sufficient. Tell those screaming for tax cuts to look at where their money goes and then act appropriately (small clue: it isn't the poor or immigrants eating away at the tax pie).
Sure they're serious - about getting one of these shills elected so that they may continue to obfuscate the truth, protect the robber barons, and generally fuck what is left of this pathetic country into the ground. Other than RP and DK, they all make me sick.
truth @ 32:
I guess Ron Paull's trolls are as insane as he is. When every other GOP candidate is batshit insane, the one who is just "insane" looks almost rational. The problem is all about context, the shinniest part of a fece is still that: shit.
Vitam Vas @ 43:
Indeed, if only libertarian types had minimal mathematical skills and realized that consumptive taxes are indeed regressive. A quick example
Poor person earns $1,000.00 and spends $1,000.00 on goods with a 10% sales tax. The effective tax paid is 10% by the poor person.
A rich person earns $10,000.00 and spends the same $1,000.00 on goods with the same sales tax. Except that now the effective tax paid by the rich person on his earning footprint is just 1%.
If rich people want a bigger slice of the apple pie, they should pay for the cost of having a pie to begin with. And this is what all these supply side economist fail to understand. OR they fully understand it, but use their damnest efforts to support a policy they damn well know is unfair.
The whole abolition of the income tax works on the premise that they rich people may decide to spend their money. the trick is this, rich people are not rich because they over consume. And having a "faith/will based" contribution to the overall tax pool via the purchasing of goods and services is dangerous, because a lot of these rich people attained their fortunes by being greedy. So expecting greedy people to contribute when no one is forcing them to, is to say it mildly fucking naive. And these trickle down/tax abolitionist are trying to take the rest of us for the proverbial ride; fuck that. Rather than depend on whether or not rich people may decide or not to spend money, I'd rather have them pay now. Without them roads, sanitation, public infrastructure, educational system, law enforcement, etc, etc... they would not be able to make money in the first time (try to have a business in the middle of the bunnies without communications, roads, electricity and sewage asshole!) so they should pay for it too, and now... not maybe... perhaps... at some point.... NOW.
ysbaddaden @ 58:
If only... Rommel was an excellent general, cunning and valiant... and by all accounts had balls of iron when it came to be in the line of fire with his men. His allegiance was with Germany not with Hitler, and probably his downfall was that he was too good of a soldier, he was later suspected of being behind the plot to assassinate Hitler and was "suicided."
[Deleted. Private Freedom-Sitemonitor]
5280 @ 44:
Well, these assholes want a faith-based government... so it makes sense for them to assume that the economy be faith based too. And by faith I mean that they pray that the morons at the bottom, doing all the work and voting for them, continue being dumb enough to realize that the people at the top are robbing them blind.
Dangar @ 67:
Some of you libertarian types fail to also understand how money works. A government that is tiny, like the one idiots like you wish, which is only in charge of printing money and defending a minimal set of rights... well, it turns out that it can not print money. Simply because, you idiots don't understand that to print money you have to have enough assets to back the IOUs --which is what printed money is-- unless you are willing to surrender all your wealth to the government in exchange for those gov backed IOUs. Which means that you would end up with a government which provides no services, yet it expects a tax rate of almost 100% and all you get back from it is paper money.
Libertarians talking about economic realities is like a college dropout trying to perform brain surgery, they think they know what they are doing... but I sure as hell don't want to be under the scalpel of a person who gets their certainty through the sheer ignorance of any aspect of medicine.
Last time we tried your approach, we ended up with kids working 12 hr shifts in coal mines, Americans with an average life span of barely 50 yrs tops, women as 2nd class citizens, minorities as 3rd class citizens, with the top 1% controlling over 40% of the wealth and the overall 10% owning basically over 75% of the pie... and it always ends in the same way: a fantastic economic meltdown (1929... anyone?) and long breadlines for the rest of us. Thanks I will pass... with such a track record, you would think that Libertarians would just shut the fuck up... but noooo...
In other word, don't believe your lying eyes. The economy is fine for us elite.
Liberal AND Proud @ 60:
Why would anyone want to lubricate a snake?
Dr. Who @ 66:
http://www.thirdreich.ca/portraitsphotos/full/RommelPortrait.jpg
Looks a little like Wesley Clark, do he?
[Deleted. Private Freedom-Sitemonitor]
Sorry, meant to say "NOT advocate removal of its monopoly."
[Deleted. Private Freedom-Sitemonitor]
Why are the elite rarely anywhere near lite?
69 Dr. Who
Here's the real Dr. Who.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TQ3pC9W1o4
Sorry, here's the real Dr Who redux
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/images/2005/03/14/hart...
As Miss Emily Latilla would say, "Never mind."
But just google the image William Hartnell.
One thing the republican presidential candidates and a few of their democratic colleagues, and other members of the "better classes", have in common is a sense of entitlement to wealth and political power. These are the same representatives of the people and other members of the investment classes who object so strenuously to any notion that lesser citizens and other servants should consider themselves entitled to anything, even a representative government.
Ron Paul claims to be a Libertarian, but he is a corporatist that runs as a Republican... You can't trust that at all. Why the hell would you worshippers think you could convince liberals to vote for him? Here's a hint that the RP supporters just don't get: WE DON'T LIKE PRIVATIZING ZEALOT CORPORATISTS.
You can't even get decent service from multibillion dollar phone companies for THE essential communications service, why the hell would you turn them loose on the monetary system, water, power, the environment etc. without any restriction at all? The examples for not trusting private companies to act in the public interest without STRONG government oversight is EVERYWHERE! I'm not even going to go into contracting in Iraq. Lordy, wake the fuck up, Paulies. To do what Ron Paul is asking is EXACTLY what the fascist Mussolini advocated. Only fools would trade a slightly restrictive federal government for a completely restrictive Coporate Fascist Dictatorship. We are already headed in that direction.
They say any press is good press, but I think the more people learn about Ron Paul as a President the more insane and unrealistic he sounds. The House is the perfect place for his misguided notions; he can balance out the crazies on the other side of the coin. Leave Ron Paul in the congress, where his crazy is neutralized. You want to change AWAY from corporatism? Vote for Edwards, or write in Feingold, both of whom put their money where their mouth is on several occasions.
Edwards was a trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were victims of corporate negligence or medical malpractice. Feingold is the only person I know of that has run honest campaigns several times in a row without being forced to, and is the best congress person for reining in government spending and dirty lobbyist money. On second thought, leave him in Congress too! Both of them have admitted it openly when they make mistakes, and learn from them.
[Deleted. Private Freedom-Sitemonitor]
Worst debate ever when you stop and analyze it. economy cut taxes, that what the Republicans have done 12 years, other words stay the course. the war stay the course. health care stay the course. start more wars, stay the course. Education, stay the coarse. Global warming, stay the coarse. lower interest rates, stay the coarse. stay the coarse. stay the coarse.
Bottom line: We the people are the employers. The republicans are the employees and a large number of our employees will be getting their pink slips come 08.
And they will be stuptified as to why. How about squandering and/or stealing our resources?
Free-markets are advocated by the laissez-fairey.
Login or Register to post comments.