Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: What makes you a Republican or Democrat?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    I think i was a RINO for the most part of bush jr.'s presidency. you can check my dp about me page for more about me.


    i recently changed to the indepentent party in 2010.

    The Republicans lost the message to the point that there was no difference. Here's an electoral map of the 1976 election. Red voted Carter (Dem) and Blue was Ford (Rep). You can see that now the Republican and Democratic states have reversed. Ronald Reagan had a message that "Government isn't the solution, Government is the problem", but you can't build a party around one man.


    The Republicans made a come back by going after Southern Democrats and the bible-belt. But still no message and still plenty of RINOs in the party like Arlen Spector.


    To make a long story short, the Tea Party is a spontaneous movement of the Reagan Democrats without a leader.





    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    i was a pre-pubecent kid when reagan was president so don't know much of the finer points from off the top of my head but your reagan-obama parallels are compelling. could you elaborate more on the `goodies' you wrote about, i think i get the gist but not as much at this moment because of my pre-pubecent days when reagan was president.

    The obama-carter parallels are compelling. The Carter years were marked by stagflayion due to a bloated government. Inflation got so bad a the time that US double dipped into two recessions dring 1980 and another in 81-82. Another Carter-Obama parallel is popularity. Both where highly popular. Carter was still popular into the third year of his presidency. However, things just kept getting worse with the economy and foreign affairs.


    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    with the wars dwindling down now, the "war" distraction is going away (with the terror fight deferring to clandestine services and homeland security soon) military spending will go down but so is that drive for an economy that war brings based on WWII (or was that a one time thing?).

    The war isn't really a "distraction". It's something that needed to be taken care of. You don't lose the World Trade Towers and not do something big.


    Bush made two mistakes in Iraq. 1) Building the case for the Iraq War in WMD was an error. Sure there were WMDs. But the threat was that Iraq was set to re-arm. The Oil-for-Food Programme was corrupt and Sadaam used the program to buy off France, Russia and China. Even more disrurbing was that Qusay and Uday Hussein were due to take power in Iraq. Uday was a mad man:


    Although his status as Saddam's elder son made him Saddam's prospective successor, Uday fell out of favor with his father.[2] In October 1988, at a party in honor of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Uday murdered his father's personal valet and food taster, Kamel Hana Gegeo (some say[who?] at the request of his mother). Before an assemblage of horrified guests, an intoxicated Uday bludgeoned Gegeo with a cane, reputedly administering the coup de grâce with an electric carving knife. Gegeo had recently introduced Saddam to a younger woman, Samira Shahbandar, who later became Saddam's second wife. Uday considered his father's relationship with Shahbandar an insult to his mother. He furthermore feared losing succession to Gegeo, whose loyalty and fidelity to Saddam Hussein was unquestioned. Mubarak later called him a "psychopath".


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein


    2) The second Bush error was not bringing in our Arab allies like Saudi, Eygpt, Jordan, Morroco, Turkey and Pakistain in force to the tune of 250k troops. Without a large force to go door to door and confiscate weapons and arrest the miliants, Iraq spun out of control.


    Another point is that as a percentage of GDP, US Defense spending is lower than during the 1980s.


    US defense spending is 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[27] Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor"


    source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States




    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    obama said in 2008 that jobs will be recovering in 2011, how are things now?

    Things are getting worse. The Obama stimulus package was a failure and there is little to show for it.


    Using powerful statistical methods to separate these effects in U.S. data, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago conclude that the small initial spending multiplier turns negative by the start of the second year. In a new cross-national time series study, Ethan Ilzetzki of the London School of Economics and Enrique Mendoza and Carlos Vegh of the University of Maryland conclude that in open economies with flexible exchange rates, "a fiscal expansion leads to no significant output gains."


    My colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a GDP impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the private sector. They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2% of GDP by now.


    By contrast, the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan's in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush's in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.



    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...256446822.html

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The Republicans lost the message to the point that there was no difference. Here's an electoral map of the 1976 election. Red voted Carter (Dem) and Blue was Ford (Rep). You can see that now the Republican and Democratic states have reversed. Ronald Reagan had a message that "Government isn't the solution, Government is the problem", but you can't build a party around one man.


    The Republicans made a come back by going after Southern Democrats and the bible-belt. But still no message and still plenty of RINOs in the party like Arlen Spector.


    To make a long story short, the Tea Party is a spontaneous movement of the Reagan Democrats without a leader.


    bogart, i think you got the colors of the map confused with you interpretation: here is another map of the 1976 election results:

    Fichier:1976 Electoral College Map.png - Wikipédia
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The obama-carter parallels are compelling. The Carter years were marked by stagflayion due to a bloated government. Inflation got so bad a the time that US double dipped into two recessions dring 1980 and another in 81-82. Another Carter-Obama parallel is popularity. Both where highly popular. Carter was still popular into the third year of his presidency. However, things just kept getting worse with the economy and foreign affairs.
    what was the response to reagans first term in office besides carters influence?

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The war isn't really a "distraction". It's something that needed to be taken care of. You don't lose the World Trade Towers and not do something big.
    the distraction aspect refers to the end of the war now, it was not a distratction when the towers fell. the "distraction" reference was to help explain the angle that the war played with in the economy at the time, not with what the world outside of economics was going through.


    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    Bush made two mistakes in Iraq. 1) Building the case for the Iraq War in WMD was an error. Sure there were WMDs. But the threat was that Iraq was set to re-arm. The Oil-for-Food Programme was corrupt and Sadaam used the program to buy off France, Russia and China. Even more disrurbing was that Qusay and Uday Hussein were due to take power in Iraq. Uday was a mad man:


    Although his status as Saddam's elder son made him Saddam's prospective successor, Uday fell out of favor with his father.[2] In October 1988, at a party in honor of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Uday murdered his father's personal valet and food taster, Kamel Hana Gegeo (some say[who?] at the request of his mother). Before an assemblage of horrified guests, an intoxicated Uday bludgeoned Gegeo with a cane, reputedly administering the coup de grâce with an electric carving knife. Gegeo had recently introduced Saddam to a younger woman, Samira Shahbandar, who later became Saddam's second wife. Uday considered his father's relationship with Shahbandar an insult to his mother. He furthermore feared losing succession to Gegeo, whose loyalty and fidelity to Saddam Hussein was unquestioned. Mubarak later called him a "psychopath".


    Uday Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    2) The second Bush error was not bringing in our Arab allies like Saudi, Eygpt, Jordan, Morroco, Turkey and Pakistain in force to the tune of 250k troops. Without a large force to go door to door and confiscate weapons and arrest the miliants, Iraq spun out of control.


    Another point is that as a percentage of GDP, US Defense spending is lower than during the 1980s.


    US defense spending is 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[27] Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor"


    source: Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    1. i agree that even though were no WMDs in iraq (even after the news reports of gased people in iraq by saddam before the towers fell) that iraq was a questionable target to take out. the uday factor is something. from what i remember is that uday was an rough, assertive person and that he was a pervert, at least uday was. uday was not demonstrating needed control and him being a ruler of a country would be a problem. was that enough to take out regime at the time or was it no time better than that to take out a regime? bush sr. should have taken out saddam when desert storm happened, right? curious

    2. with the war ending in aftganistan and winding up in iraq the u.s defence spending should dwindle down. the war is going to clandestine services so i assume that the spending for that is far less than the heavy weapons needed for a war ready armed services.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    Things are getting worse. The Obama stimulus package was a failure and there is little to show for it.


    Using powerful statistical methods to separate these effects in U.S. data, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago conclude that the small initial spending multiplier turns negative by the start of the second year. In a new cross-national time series study, Ethan Ilzetzki of the London School of Economics and Enrique Mendoza and Carlos Vegh of the University of Maryland conclude that in open economies with flexible exchange rates, "a fiscal expansion leads to no significant output gains."


    My colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a GDP impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the private sector. They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2% of GDP by now.


    By contrast, the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan's in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush's in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.



    Michael J. Boskin: Why the Spending Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com
    tax cuts will raise the debt in the long term, if you are not paying enough for the debt, the debt will grow, simple. bush needed military spending to help balance his tax cuts. the wars are ending, military spending will be cut even though clandestine services will continue to grow. how will the tax cuts fair now without military spending? will that effect the tax cut strategy now? i have a feeling that bush jr. was "bailed" out economically because of the war. i wonder how his economic policies would have fared without the military response to the war on terror.
    "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - Roger "Verbal" Kint from the movie "The Usual Suspects", Baudelaire, Jim Carroll, the priest in the movie "End of Days"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    1. bogart, i think you got the colors of the map confused with you interpretation: here is another map of the 1976 election results:

    The colors are confused. But you will see that most of the South Voted Democrat. California and the North East East were Republican.


    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    what was the response to reagans first term in office besides carters influence?

    Here's a list of Communist organizations that support Obama. This philosphy in directly opposite to Reaganomics. Communism doesn't work.


    Cass Sunstein
    Samantha Powers
    ACORN
    Apollo Alliance
    Van Jones
    Tides Foundation
    Cloward–Piven strategy
    Weatherman underground
    Bill Ayers (co-founder of Weatherman Underground)
    Saul Alinsky rules for radicals


    Obama's policies are exactly oppsite to Reaganomics. Rather than cutting government, Obama tried an immense keynesian experiment which failed. After two tears, the unemployment rate is 9.2% and GDP growth is an enemic 1.8%.


    During the Reagan Recovery the economy grew at 7% to show "Trickle-down economics" and the Arthur Laffer Curve are better alternatives.


    President Regean did raise taxes while in office in a deal with House Speaker Tip O'Neill to reduce spending. The spending cuts never materialized and Regean later said that the deal was a big mistake.


    The current Republican class sees a deal with the Democrats to raise taxes now for cuts in spending later is a joke. Basically the Dems are saying I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.


    In any case, taxes will be going up due in 2013 due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the costs of Obamacare.


    The big problem is that 50% of Americans pay no income tax. It's just not possible to pay for the level of services with so many people not paying. Even if you were to tax the top 1% of earners 100% that will only give you $100 billion. The US deficit is $1.6 trillion. There's no way that tax increases will cover the US Federal and State's spending 40% of GDP.


    At that point you are basically at communism or as Obama likes to say "share the wealth". What he is failing to realize is that you need rich people to buy your stuff. Poor people don't create jobs.




    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    the distraction aspect refers to the end of the war now, it was not a distratction when the towers fell. the "distraction" reference was to help explain the angle that the war played with in the economy at the time, not with what the world outside of economics was going through.

    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    bush sr. should have taken out saddam when desert storm happened, right? curious

    I beleieve so. I believe that Bush Sr. was counting on the 1991 uprisings in Iraq to overthrow Saddam. The uprisings didn't work and the US imposed "no fly zones" which in effect was Gulf War II and the Iraq Invasion, Gulf War III.


    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    2. with the war ending in aftganistan and winding up in iraq the u.s defence spending should dwindle down. the war is going to clandestine services so i assume that the spending for that is far less than the heavy weapons needed for a war ready armed services.

    Quote Originally Posted by eric8476 View Post
    tax cuts will raise the debt in the long term, if you are not paying enough for the debt, the debt will grow, simple. bush needed military spending to help balance his tax cuts. the wars are ending, military spending will be cut even though clandestine services will continue to grow. how will the tax cuts fair now without military spending? will that effect the tax cut strategy now? i have a feeling that bush jr. was "bailed" out economically because of the war. i wonder how his economic policies would have fared without the military response to the war on terror.

    I don't believe there will be much savings. In the 1990s the Army dropped from 780,000 to 480,000 active duty end strength.
    Current strength is 610k including 48,331k Mobilized. There's been a temporary increase in troop strength of 22,000. So, the Army troop level should fall to 540,000. But that's dependant what happens in Afganistain.


    Inflation is starting to go out of control and whatever "savings" will be eaten up by inflation in food, fuel, clothing, pay increases etc. So, it will cost double to maintain a lower amount of troops.


    I agree with you that the US needs to cut spending. Two things that we can do is sell one aircraft carrier to Japan and let them pay for their own defense. Second, withdraw 50,000 troops from Germany and base them in the US. At least the troops will be spending the money on US soil and helping the local economy.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The colors are confused. But you will see that most of the South Voted Democrat. California and the North East East were Republican.
    that is a spooky looking map, what was the bible belt thinking and what was california thinking?

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    President Regean did raise taxes while in office in a deal with House Speaker Tip O'Neill to reduce spending. The spending cuts never materialized and Regean later said that the deal was a big mistake.

    The current Republican class sees a deal with the Democrats to raise taxes now for cuts in spending later is a joke. Basically the Dems are saying I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.
    wimpy needs to go on a diet. the dems are willing to concede tax cuts for raising taxes? or is it a cleaver way to cut the head off the beast before the elections if those tax cuts go into effect. there goes a republican angle for cutting taxes. a big angle from bush jr.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    In any case, taxes will be going up due in 2013 due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the costs of Obamacare.
    will my previous comment on this post hedge this comment for the dems?

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The big problem is that 50% of Americans pay no income tax. It's just not possible to pay for the level of services with so many people not paying. Even if you were to tax the top 1% of earners 100% that will only give you $100 billion. The US deficit is $1.6 trillion. There's no way that tax increases will cover the US Federal and State's spending 40% of GDP.
    wow, 50%! that is alot. it should be at 0%. a little bit goes a long way. that would help short term and long term. i think everybody should be taxed a little bit including the rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    At that point you are basically at communism or as Obama likes to say "share the wealth". What he is failing to realize is that you need rich people to buy your stuff. Poor people don't create jobs.
    capitalism does defeat communism, because it creates value.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    Inflation is starting to go out of control and whatever "savings" will be eaten up by inflation in food, fuel, clothing, pay increases etc. So, it will cost double to maintain a lower amount of troops.
    the war did stimulate the economy but why were jobs so scarce during bush jr.'s second term. obama got the presidency from a horrible economy and a horrible job outlook with, now showing, sketchy economic policies. the american people were so willing for obama's fresh ideas at the time that it shows how bad things were. bush did not take advantage of the war and what it does for an economy, at a satisfactory amount. correct me if i'm wrong.
    "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - Roger "Verbal" Kint from the movie "The Usual Suspects", Baudelaire, Jim Carroll, the priest in the movie "End of Days"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. What makes NetBuilders so special for you?
    By Aquarezz in forum Announcements and Suggestions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11 March, 2011, 18:38 PM
  2. What makes you join a forum?
    By Sbfc_ in forum Community Building
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 22 June, 2010, 18:13 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10 March, 2010, 13:24 PM
  4. What makes somebody a SEO professional?
    By Forsaken in forum Promoting
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 26 August, 2009, 07:11 AM
  5. Trusting someone who makes $$$$
    By Marcell Purham in forum Business
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 30 May, 2009, 15:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •