Liberals turning on Obama

Yeah I will, in 2012 this will be a different world.

 

Liberal means libertarian according to international relations.....

It would be a "Liberal" revolution.

 

Why hold back? If you love this country, and you are pissed off at what Obama's doing, you should say so.

Just so you know, however, Obama is quite different from Republican Presidents. No Republican president EVER increased our deficit in one fell swoop the way Obama has. And no Republican president ever tried to pass an unconstitutional health care bill that itself could bankrupt this nation. Republican presidents do not bow to foreign leaders, or badmouth this country around the world, and most of them were either governors, or mayors, or ran a business of some kind before they entered politics.

Obama never ran anything. His greatest accomplishment before seeking the presidency was being a "community organizer" in Chicago, and no one even knows what that is. He's basically a theorist with almost no practical experience making anything work or run efficiently. No wonder he's been a disaster as a president.

 

It's so simple. One short decade ago, Clinton ran surpluses, until the horrible 10-year Bush tax cut stopped them. Denny's GDP stats don't alter Clinton's success.

The U.S. from 1997-2001 had none of the following that lunatic Huevon threatens. You don't need communism or bankrupt European countries. You don't need to have the government take away investing power from the private sector. You don't need to hurt the American rich. (The rich made a lot more money under Clinton than under Bush, even after subtracting the higher tax rate.)

Do it Clinton's way. Start with his line budget and change it as little as possible. No one else has any specific plan. Everyone's plan except the history of 1997-2001 is a wild guess as to what to do. The essence of Clinton's way is 1) to consciously try to save money (e.g. privatize what he could, avoid war, and in NASA where I read a lot, he ran the Faster Cheaper Better probes) and 2) to use the traditional tax rates for the rich that always worked until they were stopped 10 years ago.

 

That "way" was the largest tax increase in the history of the world. We simply cannot tax our way out of this mess. That's the only way we can agree on that will destroy this country.

 

That's easily-shot down propaganda you've read somewhere. 1) Anything this country does is usually the biggest in the world because it has the biggest economy. In total dollars, sure taxes are big, but per person, and per rich person, they are much smaller than most countries.

2) Tax rates had to move up a lot to return to normal. This was to solve the emergency caused by going down so much under Reagan, causing the first giant deficits this nation had seen except in the Civil War and WWII.

Now we have another emergency and it's just as easy to solve it. Return to normal American tax rates (which are lower than normal for most of the world). And cut those expenses that increased during the Bush years, like wars and the doubling in intelligence employees.

Tell me how it destroyed us in 1997-2001. Remember the booming economy and stock market?

 

If so, that's regrettably a crazy system. It's 12 months before the convention and 15 months before the election. I remember when all primaries were in April and May except one in March--New Hampshire, a conservative state, tried every time to narrow the field for all following primaries.

 

Look at us now. We tried to tax our way out and we're bankrupt.

 

Okay. Those giant surpluses caused today's giant deficits. Things are better now than then. Yep.

Similarly, if I save $100,000 in my bank account, get married to a Republican who brings in a lot less income than we made combined before I married her, she spends my $100,000, her continued spending puts us into debt about $300,000, then---

the cause is the bad old days when I had $100,000 in my bank account. The solution isn't to go back to how I saved the money. The solution, you say, is to continue not bringing in enough money into the family.

That's what you're saying. My point is, instead of inventing unreliable theories on how to solve the problem, just do it the way that worked in the real world, not in some textbook. Try to replicate 1997-2001. The main differences are that 1) taxes before the 10-year tax cut paid the bills and 2) the giant Bush increases in expenses for war, spies, and Homeland Security hadn't happened.

In 4 words: Reverse the Bush years.

 

So we can either tax our way out (which, of course, leads to more spending), or we can reform the government and spend less. We really have no other viable options.