The more and more I think about...

[OU_Sooners75]

my virtues and values....and all that stuff...the more and more I do not fit in the Democrat party anymore.

My first ever presidential election was 1996 in which I voted for Clinton. I then voted for Gore in 2000. Followed that by voting for Bush in 2004. Last election, I bought into the Obama hope and change lies...and voted for him.

I moved back to Oklahoma since then and registered as a democrat. I think I am going to go down to the courthouse here and register as a republican or independent since my values are leaving the democrat party.

[ictsooner7]

my virtues and values....and all that stuff...the more and more I do not fit in the Democrat party anymore.

My first ever presidential election was 1996 in which I voted for Clinton. I then voted for Gore in 2000. Followed that by voting for Bush in 2004. Last election, I bought into the Obama hope and change lies...and voted for him.

I moved back to Oklahoma since then and registered as a democrat. I think I am going to go down to the courthouse here and register as a republican or independent since my values are leaving the democrat party.

Remind me how that voting for bush worked out for ya.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Remind me how that voting for obama worked out for ya.Indeed.

[Breadburner]

Indeed.

Heh...!

[hawaii 5-0]

Hope and Change have been going on since the days of James Buchanan.

People are still buying that old line. Only this time its the Pubs drinking the KoolAid.

Next time it'll be another Politico preaching hope and change all over again.

I hope someone would give me some change. Half dollars would do nicely.

5-0

[Turd_Ferguson]

Hope and Change have been going on since the days of James Buchanan.

People are still buying that old line. Only this time its the Pubs drinking the KoolAid.

Next time it'll be another Politico preaching hope and change all over again.

I hope someone would give me some change. Half dollars would do nicely.

5-0What? Are you drunk or something? What people are buying the "Old line of Hope and Change"? Exactly what Koolaid are the Pubs drinking?

[ictsooner7]

Remind me how that voting for bush worked out for ya.




Indeed.


Originally Posted by ictsooner7

Remind me how that voting for obama worked out for ya.

A lil history rewrite? Turdbucket

[ictsooner7]

What? Are you drunk or something? What people are buying the "Old line of Hope and Change"? Exactly what Koolaid are the Pubs drinking?


That Teabaggers are really concerned about the country and not just trying to get power to implement their real agenda of cutting taxes to the wealthy, destroying Medicare and Social Security.

[yermom]

Which values would those be 75?

How are any of the other options any better?

[ictsooner7]

Remind me how that voting for obama worked out for ya.


Indeed.

Pretty damn well, thank you. I have the best job I have ever had. My 401k is up over where it was when bush crashed it. My IRA has tripled since bush crashed it. My daughter was diagnosed with Graves disease and was able to stay on our insurance as she finished college and will be able to get insurance since she has preexisting condition. The Dow is up to 13k from around 8k where bush left it, the last two year GDP's where 3%, bush's two best years were 3.57 and 3.02. Maybe this month definitely next month the PRIVATE sector jobs lost since Obama will be replaced, with government jobs lower than when he started. bush LOST PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS and ADDED GOVERNMENT JOBS. The yearly deficit is lower than when bush left in 2009.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Oklahoma isn't exactly a swing state.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Turdbucket...lol. Icky...you should go edit all of those post above. They kinda make you look like you drunk, high or just plain ignernt...:D

[hawaii 5-0]

What? Are you drunk or something? What people are buying the "Old line of Hope and Change"? Exactly what Koolaid are the Pubs drinking?


May I suggest you pick up a newspaper or even check the internet.

Hope and change isn't new. Tho he never ran for President, (probably because he was born in Kenya) Moses was an early Hope and Change guy.


5-0

[diverdog]

my virtues and values....and all that stuff...the more and more I do not fit in the Democrat party anymore.

My first ever presidential election was 1996 in which I voted for Clinton. I then voted for Gore in 2000. Followed that by voting for Bush in 2004. Last election, I bought into the Obama hope and change lies...and voted for him.

I moved back to Oklahoma since then and registered as a democrat. I think I am going to go down to the courthouse here and register as a republican or independent since my values are leaving the democrat party.

What virtues and values are you talking about?

[ictsooner7]

May I suggest you pick up a newspaper or even check the internet.

Hope and change isn't new. Tho he never ran for President, (probably because he was born in Kenya) Moses was an early Hope and Change guy.


5-0

Talk about ignorant. Still need convincing?

[ictsooner7]

Turdbucket...lol. Icky...you should go edit all of those post above. They kinda make you look like you drunk, high or just plain ignernt...:D

Tell me what I said was wrong. What facts do I have that are WRONG?

[soonerhubs]

"Bush crashed it..."

*Yawn*

This shows how much you know about Wall Street.

[jkjsooner]

"Bush crashed it..."

*Yawn*

This shows how much you know about Wall Street.

When the warning signs were popping up everywhere in 2004/2005, did the Bush administration do anything to slow down the real estate bubble? Did they enforce any of the existing financial regulations?

Nope, they had a fanatical anti-regulation view and stuck to those guns despite mounting dislocations in the economy up until the point where they had to admit failure and had to spend hundreds of billions on taxpayer bailouts.

Why do you think Bush abandoned his conservative principles at the end of his administration? Because the economists told him we were f'ed. That's why.

Clinton is to blame as well. When it came to the regulation that served us well for over 50 years, he was essentially a conservative radical himself. They were all under the Greenspan spell but Clinton wasn't around when things started going bat arse crazy when any economist worth his salt (which turned out to be very few of them) was screaming about the impending financial ruin.

[diverdog]

When the warning signs were popping up everywhere in 2004/2005, did the Bush administration do anything to slow down the real estate bubble? Did they enforce any of the existing financial regulations?

Nope, they had a fanatical anti-regulation view and stuck to those guns despite mounting dislocations in the economy up until the point where they had to admit failure and had to spend hundreds of billions on taxpayer bailouts.

Why do you think Bush abandoned his conservative principles at the end of his administration? Because the economists told him we were f'ed. That's why.

Clinton is to blame as well. When it came to the regulation that served us well for over 50 years, he was essentially a conservative radical himself. They were all under the Greenspan spell but Clinton wasn't around when things started going bat arse crazy when any economist worth his salt (which turned out to be very few of them) was screaming about the impending financial ruin.

IMO Greenspan was a horrible Fed Chairman. He deserves a lot of blame.

[diverdog]

Talk about ignorant. Still need convincing?

Ict:

He said that tongue in cheek. 5-0 is pretty much a lefty.

[soonerhubs]

When the warning signs were popping up everywhere in 2004/2005, did the Bush administration do anything to slow down the real estate bubble? Did they enforce any of the existing financial regulations?

Nope, they had a fanatical anti-regulation view and stuck to those guns despite mounting dislocations in the economy up until the point where they had to admit failure and had to spend hundreds of billions on taxpayer bailouts.

Why do you think Bush abandoned his conservative principles at the end of his administration? Because the economists told him we were f'ed. That's why.

Clinton is to blame as well. When it came to the regulation that served us well for over 50 years, he was essentially a conservative radical himself. They were all under the Greenspan spell but Clinton wasn't around when things started going bat arse crazy when any economist worth his salt (which turned out to be very few of them) was screaming about the impending financial ruin.

While agree with this, I feel that it is silly to lay the blame on a single person. If he had said Greenspan, the Democratic majority at one time, the Republican majority at another time, as well as Presidents HW, Clinton, and W, then I would give credence to his statement. However, I believe he's a mindless mouthpiece that worships the Democratic agenda, so I wouldn't expect that from him. It's far too complex of a problem to play the politics card, but Icky wouldn't see it any other way.

[Curly Bill]

Ict:

He said that tongue in cheek. 5-0 is pretty much a lefty.

Pretty much? Gee, ya think?

[jkjsooner]

While agree with this, I feel that it is silly to lay the blame on a single person.

I agree but you have to put it in perspective. When people are making simple claims that it is all Obama's fault then they're asking for responses such as that.

[soonerhubs]

I agree but you have to put it in perspective. When people are making simple claims that it is all Obama's fault then they're asking for responses such as that. Are you telling me to be accepting other people's opinions? I'm sure going to try. It's just so difficult when peoples are wrong on the itnernetz. ;)

[OU_Sooners75]

Which values would those be 75?

How are any of the other options any better?

I am pro-life. Want education to be handled by the state not the feds. Want smaller government and lower taxes on companies and individuals....just to name a short few.

I find myself lining more and more with the right side of the aisle as time goes by and I get older.

I love using my right to vote, which includes the primaries. So if I do re-register, it would be for one of the two parties....or I could just go independent and wait until the general elections here in Oklahoma.

I do agree, both parties are in need of an overhaul and getting their **** straightened out...and I think the US needs to do away with the two party system.

[OU_Sooners75]

Remind me how that voting for bush worked out for ya.

remind me again how the reign of democrats for 4 years in both houses, and 2 years with both houses and presidency has worked out?

We are in further and further debt. Our gas prices are outrageous. This is the first time in my life I have gone to a gas station anywhere and Gas is hovering right at $4/gallon (yesterday it was at $3.899. )

The entire elected federal government needs to be kicked out of office and replaced by non-career politicians with term limits!

Oh, and did I mention that our Senate that has been controlled by the dems for the past 4+ years has not passed a budget since taking control? They are violating our constitution everyday until they pass a budget....but lets load up on the republicans since it is the hip thing to do now!

[OU_Sooners75]

That Teabaggers are really concerned about the country and not just trying to get power to implement their real agenda of cutting taxes to the wealthy, destroying Medicare and Social Security.

I personally do not think it should be up to the federal government to give people welfare...be it in the form of Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.

Not sure why you are so hell bent against cutting taxes on the wealthy, God knows you may pay income tax, but in reality you don't pay anything when you get your tax return check!

The wealthiest people in the country pay the majority of the taxes as sits now. I say lower their rate slightly, and make us that fall into the other 99% pay more and not get any returns!

Do away with Earned Income Credit....In fact, I honestly think the entire tax code needs to be updated and overhauled to a fair tax or a national sales tax, so at least the illegals will still be paying taxes in this country.

A lot of the debt from welfare comes from a lot of illegals poaching off the system.

[pphilfran]

When the warning signs were popping up everywhere in 2004/2005, did the Bush administration do anything to slow down the real estate bubble? Did they enforce any of the existing financial regulations?

Nope, they had a fanatical anti-regulation view and stuck to those guns despite mounting dislocations in the economy up until the point where they had to admit failure and had to spend hundreds of billions on taxpayer bailouts.

Why do you think Bush abandoned his conservative principles at the end of his administration? Because the economists told him we were f'ed. That's why.

Clinton is to blame as well. When it came to the regulation that served us well for over 50 years, he was essentially a conservative radical himself. They were all under the Greenspan spell but Clinton wasn't around when things started going bat arse crazy when any economist worth his salt (which turned out to be very few of them) was screaming about the impending financial ruin.

Warning signs were as early as 1998..see LTCM...

[Curly Bill]

I personally do not think it should be up to the federal government to give people welfare...be it in the form of Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.

Not sure why you are so hell bent against cutting taxes on the wealthy, God knows you may pay income tax, but in reality you don't pay anything when you get your tax return check!

The wealthiest people in the country pay the majority of the taxes as sits now. I say lower their rate slightly, and make us that fall into the other 99% pay more and not get any returns!

Do away with Earned Income Credit....In fact, I honestly think the entire tax code needs to be updated and overhauled to a fair tax or a national sales tax, so at least the illegals will still be paying taxes in this country.

A lot of the debt from welfare comes from a lot of illegals pouching off the system.

ict doesn't pay taxes, we've already established he's a welfare bum.

[pphilfran]

And you damn sure should watch The Warning on pbs...

What you are saying about Bush is exactly what Clinton and his Working Group were saying/doing....

Take an hour and watch the vid...educate yourself...

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

[jkjsooner]

I have seen it and it is one reason I reserve plenty of blame for Clinton.

However, LTCM appeared to many as an isolated event. The warning signs were there but not like they were in 2004/2005 when things really went crazy.

I'm not going to sit back and pretend that Clinton or Obama or most politicians would have done anything differently. They are all programmed to ride the high for as long as they can and get as much political advantage out of it as possible. Remember Bush talking about the "ownership society" and championing the rate of home ownership. I think any politician would have done the same thing but that doesn't ignore the fact that Bush did it.


Note: On a similar topic, politicians have been programmed to reduce taxes and increase spending as well. It's been a winner ever since the Reagan days. It works... until it doesn't...

[ictsooner7]

I personally do not think it should be up to the federal government to give people welfare...be it in the form of Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.

Not sure why you are so hell bent against cutting taxes on the wealthy, God knows you may pay income tax, but in reality you don't pay anything when you get your tax return check!

The wealthiest people in the country pay the majority of the taxes as sits now. I say lower their rate slightly, and make us that fall into the other 99% pay more and not get any returns!

Do away with Earned Income Credit....In fact, I honestly think the entire tax code needs to be updated and overhauled to a fair tax or a national sales tax, so at least the illegals will still be paying taxes in this country.

A lot of the debt from welfare comes from a lot of illegals poaching off the system.


Originally Posted by Curly Bill ict doesn't pay taxes, we've already established he's a welfare bum.

This is what I'm talking about, total ignorance. You have it in your head what economic class I'm in by my values and beliefs, in other words ya’ll just making sh!t up. I, we are in the top 3% of taxpayers so when I talk of raising taxes on the “wealthy” I am talking about raise my OWN taxes. Lower the rate hasn’t worked, it didn’t work for Coolidge and it didn’t work for Reagan and it didn’t work for either Bush. Trickle down is not an economic theory or policy, it is a POLITICAL policy written by a Wall Street Journal WRITER, Jude Wanniski, who was fired for overly overt republican political activates before their sold there sold to Murdock. A little background on the “economic” policy you’re espousing is below. I have a degree in finance and with a minor in economics, I started out to be an economics major but decided that finance would be more profitable. I have 25 years of experience working in finance from the biggest companies on the plant to a small not for profit. I see you want to cut taxes to companies, some companies pay no taxes at all and a few who make billions in profits actually get a tax CREDIT back. Talk about welfare. Before you start to parrot the republican party talking points, I suggest you look things up and see how they really worked out for our country. Look at GDP growth rates and the deficit. Look at employment gains. Republican presidents have a worse record than democrats, because cutting taxes to the wealthy does not spur on the economy, because they don’t spend it. Put money in the pockets of people who have to spend it and they economy will grow, like it is now and under Clinton.

As for SS and Medicare do you not understand that people have been paying into it for their entire lives? How does that constitute welfare? Is anything that comes from the government welfare?

[ictsooner7]

House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC's "Meet The Press."
Odds are you've never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.
When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.
In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.
Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."
The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.
Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91 percent. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:
"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Goldwater, however, rejected the "liberalism" of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other "moderates" within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.
And so after Goldwater's defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover's disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Nixon wasn't willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn't, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another forty years in the electoral wilderness.
By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.
Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.
At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.
Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.
There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.
When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security – and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.
Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.
And that's just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "new covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box. A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an "end to welfare as we know it" and, in his second inaugural address, an "end to the era of big government." He was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: "We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve... But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the 'Two Santa Claus Theory' in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts..."
Ed Crane, president of the Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year: "When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don't cut spending. That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.
And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
"...Jude's charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. ... [T]he capital-gains tax has come erratically but inexorably down -- while the market capitalization of U.S. equities has risen from roughly a third of global market cap to close to half. These many trillions in new entrepreneurial wealth are a true warrant of the worth of his impact. Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize."
In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.
The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski's work. They held power for thirty years, made themselves trillions of dollars, cut organized labor's representation in the workplace from around 25 percent when Reagan came into office to around 8 of the non-governmental workforce today, and left such a massive deficit that some misguided "conservative" Democrats are again clamoring to shoot Santa with working-class tax hikes and entitlement program cuts.
And now Boehner, McCain, Brooks, and the whole crowd are again clamoring to be recognized as the ones who will out-Santa Claus the Democrats. You'd think after all the damage they've done that David Gregory would have simply laughed Boehner off the program – much as the American people did to the Republicans in the last election – although Gregory is far too much a gentleman for that. Instead, he merely looked incredulous; it was enough.
The Two Santa Claus theory isn't dead, as we can see from today's Republican rhetoric. Hopefully, though, reality will continue to sink in with the American people and the massive fraud perpetrated by Wanniski, Reagan, Laffer, Graham, Bush(s), and all their "conservative" enablers will be seen for what it was and is. And the Obama administration can get about the business of repairing the damage and recovering the stolen assets of these cheap hustlers.

[diverdog]

I am pro-life. Want education to be handled by the state not the feds. Want smaller government and lower taxes on companies and individuals....just to name a short few. I find myself lining more and more with the right side of the aisle as time goes by and I get older. I love using my right to vote, which includes the primaries. So if I do re-register, it would be for one of the two parties....or I could just go independent and wait until the general elections here in Oklahoma.I do agree, both parties are in need of an overhaul and getting their **** straightened out...and I think the US needs to do away with the two party system. Ou75:Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. We pay into both systems. Education by and large is handled at the local level. No one pays enough in taxes including you and the rich. We are so far to right of the Laffer Curb it ain't funny. Tax rates are scheduled to go up and I hope congress leaves it alone.In case you are wondering I pay estimated taxes so I do not get a refund.

[pphilfran]

I have seen it and it is one reason I reserve plenty of blame for Clinton.

However, LTCM appeared to many as an isolated event. The warning signs were there but not like they were in 2004/2005 when things really went crazy.

I'm not going to sit back and pretend that Clinton or Obama or most politicians would have done anything differently. They are all programmed to ride the high for as long as they can and get as much political advantage out of it as possible. Remember Bush talking about the "ownership society" and championing the rate of home ownership. I think any politician would have done the same thing but that doesn't ignore the fact that Bush did it.


Note: On a similar topic, politicians have been programmed to reduce taxes and increase spending as well. It's been a winner ever since the Reagan days. It works... until it doesn't...

They are all the same and all had a hand in the final mess...Bush was not the only one championing home ownership...Clinton is right there in bed with him on that issue....

It took decades of mismanagement from both sides to get us in the mess we are in....

[diverdog]

They are all the same and all had a hand in the final mess...Bush was not the only one championing home ownership...Clinton is right there in bed with him on that issue....It took decades of mismanagement from both sides to get us in the mess we are in.... And an idiot at the fed to enable them.

[sappstuf]

Ou75:Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. We pay into both systems. Education by and large is handled at the local level. No one pays enough in taxes including you and the rich. We are so far to right of the Laffer Curb it ain't funny. Tax rates are scheduled to go up and I hope congress leaves it alone.In case you are wondering I pay estimated taxes so I do not get a refund.

It isn't just Bush tax cuts expiring, it is all the new taxes from Obamacare kicking in... Combined, it is a massive tax increase... It is also the reason the CBO is projecting 1.1% growth next year.. They state that specifically.

If you insist that cutting spending is bad in a bad economy, then how could you insist on a massive tax hike? Won't they both take money out of the economy? The CBO certainly thinks so.

[soonerhubs]

House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC's "Meet The Press."
Odds are you've never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.
When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.
In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.
Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."
The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.
Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91 percent. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:
"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Goldwater, however, rejected the "liberalism" of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other "moderates" within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.
And so after Goldwater's defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover's disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Nixon wasn't willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn't, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another forty years in the electoral wilderness.
By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.
Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.
At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!
Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.
Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes! For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.
There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.
When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security – and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.
Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.
And that's just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "new covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box. A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an "end to welfare as we know it" and, in his second inaugural address, an "end to the era of big government." He was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: "We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve... But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the 'Two Santa Claus Theory' in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts..."
Ed Crane, president of the Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year: "When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don't cut spending. That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts – particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail – and blowing out federal spending. Bush even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.
And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that – like an inexorable law of nature – would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
"...Jude's charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. ... [T]he capital-gains tax has come erratically but inexorably down -- while the market capitalization of U.S. equities has risen from roughly a third of global market cap to close to half. These many trillions in new entrepreneurial wealth are a true warrant of the worth of his impact. Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize."
In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years – they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.
The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski's work. They held power for thirty years, made themselves trillions of dollars, cut organized labor's representation in the workplace from around 25 percent when Reagan came into office to around 8 of the non-governmental workforce today, and left such a massive deficit that some misguided "conservative" Democrats are again clamoring to shoot Santa with working-class tax hikes and entitlement program cuts.
And now Boehner, McCain, Brooks, and the whole crowd are again clamoring to be recognized as the ones who will out-Santa Claus the Democrats. You'd think after all the damage they've done that David Gregory would have simply laughed Boehner off the program – much as the American people did to the Republicans in the last election – although Gregory is far too much a gentleman for that. Instead, he merely looked incredulous; it was enough.
The Two Santa Claus theory isn't dead, as we can see from today's Republican rhetoric. Hopefully, though, reality will continue to sink in with the American people and the massive fraud perpetrated by Wanniski, Reagan, Laffer, Graham, Bush(s), and all their "conservative" enablers will be seen for what it was and is. And the Obama administration can get about the business of repairing the damage and recovering the stolen assets of these cheap hustlers.

Are you a blogger named Wilde-Moonchild? Do you know what it means to plagiarize?

[diverdog]

It isn't just Bush tax cuts expiring, it is all the new taxes from Obamacare kicking in... Combined, it is a massive tax increase... It is also the reason the CBO is projecting 1.1% growth next year.. They state that specifically. If you insist that cutting spending is bad in a bad economy, then how could you insist on a massive tax hike? Won't they both take money out of the economy? The CBO certainly thinks so. Sapp:I was with our banks economist last week and they see a 2.5% growth next year. He has been dead on the last 3 years.

So we will see.What do you want to cut?

If you look at the data for tax rates or tax/gdp for as long as we have actual data you'll find that there is no correlation between taxes and economic growth rate for taxes as administered in the United States. On average we grow at about 3.5% over the long term.

[ictsooner7]

Are you a blogger named Wilde-Moonchild? Do you know what it means to plagiarize?

A little background on the “economic” policy you’re espousing is below. Is from my post above it. Now you are going to get on me for posting this which is clearly not written by me, hence BACKGROUND is used. Now when I see you asking the every other poster who gets their treads from rightwing websites, I will consider your comment valid.

[soonerhubs]

A little background on the “economic” policy you’re espousing is below. Is from my post above it. Now you are going to get on me for posting this which is clearly not written by me, hence BACKGROUND is used. Now when I see you asking the every other poster who gets their treads from rightwing websites, I will consider your comment valid.

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.

[pphilfran]

He will see it if it is in his preferred font size...

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.

[Turd_Ferguson]

He will see it if it is in his preferred font size...

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.He will not believe you because you don't agree with every thing he spew's!

[ictsooner7]

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.

Typical of the right, attack the writer or where it was posted, but not the facts. You would have been better leaving this one alone.

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

Jude Wanniski - the father of supply side economics was raised a communist and was a taught himself economics and card counting. Lafferable. What a joke you people follow. But I guess you like those self taught as apposed to, you know, fancy sit down universities with libraries and book learnin' and such aka GLENN BECK.


http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1701/jude-wanniski-taxes-and-two-santa-theory

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001880.html

[ictsooner7]

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.



Are you a blogger named Wilde-Moonchild? Do you know what it means to plagiarize?

How did I misread you?

[soonerhubs]

How did I misread you?

To put it in simple terms, you feel that you are immune to my criticism unless the "Right-wingers" are also criticized. I do criticize them as well, but apparently the legitimacy of your posts is highly dependent on other folks' posts. So enjoy being the mirror image of Hannity.

[ictsooner7]

Are you a blogger named Wilde-Moonchild? Do you know what it means to plagiarize?


What the hell does Wilde-Moochild have to do with this?

Published on Monday, January 26, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

by Thom Hartmann

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

There all better?

[soonerhubs]

What the hell does Wilde-Moochild have to do with this?

Published on Monday, January 26, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

by Thom Hartmann

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

There all better?

:) You get so angry. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny. Thanks for the source. Moonchild must have also plagiarized that background. ;)

[okie52]

Typical of the right, attack the writer or where it was posted, but not the facts. You would have been better leaving this one alone.

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

Jude Wanniski - the father of supply side economics was raised a communist and was a taught himself economics and card counting. Lafferable. What a joke you people follow. But I guess you like those self taught as apposed to, you know, fancy sit down universities with libraries and book learnin' and such aka GLENN BECK.


http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1701/jude-wanniski-taxes-and-two-santa-theory

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001880.html

Obama appears to be a supply sider...does that ruin him for you?

[soonerhubs]

I was able to watch the Frontline special on the fiscal policy. It was very enlightening, and I found it interesting to see Alan Greenspan's admission to flaws towards the end of the show.

Brooksley Born appears to have been vindicated. Interesting how some of these disasters could have been averted a decade ago.

I really need to try that University and book learning methodology of knowledge acquisition. Where do I sign up?

[rock on sooner]

OU75...just an FYI...in the summer of 2008...I went on vacation...drove from Iowa to Florida
and every state I gassed up in had gas MORE than $4 a gallon...got up to $4.10/gal national
average...I think Dubya was still prez...

[soonerhubs]

OU75...just an FYI...in the summer of 2008...I went on vacation...drove from Iowa to Florida
and every state I gassed up in had gas MORE than $4 a gallon...got up to $4.10/gal national
average...I think Dubya was still prez...

...but then he "crashed the market" to give us all cheap gas. We should be grateful! ;)

I always laugh at the new facebook posts and email forwards that mention gas being cheap before Obama took office without even acknowledging the fact that the economy had collapsed. :D

[okie52]

OU75...just an FYI...in the summer of 2008...I went on vacation...drove from Iowa to Florida
and every state I gassed up in had gas MORE than $4 a gallon...got up to $4.10/gal national
average...I think Dubya was still prez...

That should have been about 7/2008...oil was spiking at about $148 a barrel.

[rock on sooner]

That should have been about 7/2008...oil was spiking at about $148 a barrel.

Actually, late May and early June, I remember because while I was "sunning" on a beach in Destin, FL
and "nursing" MANY malt beverages, my central A/C shot craps in the Iowa heat...$8k worth, but I did
get energy rebates! lol...

[ictsooner7]

To put it in simple terms, you feel that you are immune to my criticism unless the "Right-wingers" are also criticized. I do criticize them as well, but apparently the legitimacy of your posts is highly dependent on other folks' posts. So enjoy being the mirror image of Hannity.


OK let me say this slow and use small words. You said;



Originally Posted by soonerhubs

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.

SO my posts have to be vetted?

[okie52]

Actually, late May and early June, I remember because while I was "sunning" on a beach in Destin, FL
and "nursing" MANY malt beverages, my central A/C shot craps in the Iowa heat...$8k worth, but I did
get energy rebates! lol...

Always a silver lining...;)

[rock on sooner]

Always a silver lining...;)

Beside the rebates, the "lining" was silver bullets, straight from Golden, CO
and that champion Repub Joe Coors!;)

[soonercoop1]

Ou75:Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. We pay into both systems. Education by and large is handled at the local level. No one pays enough in taxes including you and the rich. We are so far to right of the Laffer Curb it ain't funny. Tax rates are scheduled to go up and I hope congress leaves it alone.In case you are wondering I pay estimated taxes so I do not get a refund.

Almost correct DD as one is a ponzi scheme but the other is welfare...guess which is which...

[diverdog]

Almost correct DD as one is a ponzi scheme but the other is welfare...guess which is which...

Coop:

Medicaid is welfare. Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. SS is also paid by out of the same taxes. The problem is not the program but the raids on the fund overages by both parties. SS would be fine if it were in a true lock box and not used by politicians to buy votes.

[soonerhubs]

To put it in simple terms, you fithat you are immune to my criticism unless the "Right-wingers" are also criticized. I do criticize them as well, but apparently the legitimacy of your posts is highly dependent on other folks' posts. So enjoy being the mirror image of Hannity.


OK let me say this slow and use small words. You said;



Originally Posted by soonerhubs

Ichabod. You misread me. I'm not a rightwing guy or a left wing guy. I endorse a bit of reason and unbiased approaches to politics. Anyways, who was it that wrote that great opinion piece? I feel that sources are very valuable and a reasonable request, especially if you seek to be taken the least bit seriously.

SO my posts have to be vetted?

Vetted, cited... Whatever you like to call it. How else shall we reach your level of incite, I mean insight? ;)

[soonerhubs]

Nice use of a homophone, imho.

[ictsooner7]

Vetted, cited... Whatever you like to call it. How else shall we reach your level of incite, I mean insight? ;)

google, oh thats right....you did and couldn't find it. I lost the link and found it in 30 seconds.

[soonerhubs]

Vetted, cited... Whatever you like to call it. How else shall we reach your level of incite, I mean insight? ;)

google, oh thats right....you did and couldn't find it. I lost the link and found it in 30 seconds. you win!

[dwarthog]

What the hell does Wilde-Moochild have to do with this?

Published on Monday, January 26, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

by Thom Hartmann

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

There all better?

Bull****,

That diatribe you posted is a word for word paste from here..

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/two-santa-clauses-or-how-the-republican-party-has-conned-america-for-thirty-years/question-1903537/


Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years
by Wilde~MoonChild Posted June 21, 2011

Which probably stole it from here, the source your citing.


Published on Monday, January 26, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years
by Thom Hartmann

[OU_Sooners75]

OU75...just an FYI...in the summer of 2008...I went on vacation...drove from Iowa to Florida
and every state I gassed up in had gas MORE than $4 a gallon...got up to $4.10/gal national
average...I think Dubya was still prez...

Good for you...In Kansas and Oklahoma in 2008 I never saw gas even close to $4/gallon. Granted, I didn't go to every single gas station in every single town either.

But I do know when I went to the Big 12 championship game in KC, it wasn't that high in Missouri.

[OU_Sooners75]

OK let me say this slow and use small words. You said;




SO my posts have to be vetted?

Yep, this is definitely KC//Crimson

[ictsooner7]

Bull****,

That diatribe you posted is a word for word paste from here..

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/two-santa-clauses-or-how-the-republican-party-has-conned-america-for-thirty-years/question-1903537/



Which probably stole it from here, the source your citing.

No............I didn't post it from there. Again just making **** up. You say it is a word for word, so where is your proof I took it from the source you think I took it from?

Jeezzz, got off the point of what he is saying about the republican "economic" theory is true. It was written by a self-taught "economist" who was raised a COMMIE.

[StoopTroup]

A little background on the “economic” policy you’re espousing is below. Is from my post above it. Now you are going to get on me for posting this which is clearly not written by me, hence BACKGROUND is used. Now when I see you asking the every other poster who gets their treads from rightwing websites, I will consider your comment valid.

I do have to give you a bit of support in this one as there is a lot of historical truth in what you pasted.

It's one of my main concerns. I know that by supporting even one thing that President Obama has done makes you a dirty lib around here but one of my largest concerns is this idea that America needs to get rid of the two party system. Now when it's said you then have to ask the person that said it if they are saying they want a one party system or a multi-party system. Depending on that answer is the direction of our Country may go.

The article you posted is concerned that Conservatism will put an end to a Party just as to much Liberalism would do. Moderation is key. Many here move right into the idea that Moderation is just a centrist approach to politics then.

IMO our Country has been very good at keeping our Country in good shape by having a strong two party system that is able to negotiate the economical, military and societal problems (and others) that arise. When one Party gets to powerful we have always adapted and adjusted. When two parties fail us we have killed off the parties that have failed to negotiate and keep our Country from splitting in half like it did prior to the Civil War.

I'm concerned that we are facing such an adjustment should the GOP think that winning the 2012 Election with the "Anyone But Obama" Campaign Strategy that if they act like the folks in Wisconsin's State House or the US House of Representatives in their last elections that things will lead to change that we should have worked harder to avoid. I'm concerned that what we saw in 2008 will become the norm and that the GOP's current Strategies will lead to killing the Republican Party that I loved and supported until "Read My Lips" became a way to install the Clinton's and make it cool to have Leaders who never inhaled or argued under oath what one syllable words mean in a sentence.

We need a two party system at the very least and this last Supreme Court Ruling that Corporations are people and The PACs and Super PACs have changed politics and elections in our Country forever.

It was cool to see Barack Obama win the Presidency and prove to us all that indeed if you study hard and apply yourself, you can someday become President of the United Stayes. What has transpired after he proved it could be done is that the GOP/RNC is working to create enough fear about it happening that they are willing to risk the future of their party I order to make sure it never happens again.

This is the real danger IMO.

[cleller]

Didn't Obama win on an "Anyone But Bush" platform?

Obama was more a product of the Chicago political machine. He was bought and groomed there.

[ictsooner7]

Good post troup, I agree with most of it. I think that you hit the nail on the head with "We need a two party system at the very least and this last Supreme Court Ruling that Corporations are people and The PACs and Super PACs have changed politics and elections in our Country forever." Money overrides the majority, you can spread lies, IE swiftboat, death panel. We need to do away with super PAC's and having guys like newt's sugar daddy adelson buying himself a president. My fear is that the dems are buying into that kind of politics and forgetting about the 99% of the country who cant put $10m into a guy to run for the white house.

[soonerhubs]

I do have to give you a bit of support in this one as there is a lot of historical truth in what you pasted.

It's one of my main concerns. I know that by supporting even one thing that President Obama has done makes you a dirty lib around here but one of my largest concerns is this idea that America needs to get rid of the two party system. Now when it's said you then have to ask the person that said it if they are saying they want a one party system or a multi-party system. Depending on that answer is the direction of our Country may go.

The article you posted is concerned that Conservatism will put an end to a Party just as to much Liberalism would do. Moderation is key. Many here move right into the idea that Moderation is just a centrist approach to politics then.

IMO our Country has been very good at keeping our Country in good shape by having a strong two party system that is able to negotiate the economical, military and societal problems (and others) that arise. When one Party gets to powerful we have always adapted and adjusted. When two parties fail us we have killed off the parties that have failed to negotiate and keep our Country from splitting in half like it did prior to the Civil War.

I'm concerned that we are facing such an adjustment should the GOP think that winning the 2012 Election with the "Anyone But Obama" Campaign Strategy that if they act like the folks in Wisconsin's State House or the US House of Representatives in their last elections that things will lead to change that we should have worked harder to avoid. I'm concerned that what we saw in 2008 will become the norm and that the GOP's current Strategies will lead to killing the Republican Party that I loved and supported until "Read My Lips" became a way to install the Clinton's and make it cool to have Leaders who never inhaled or argued under oath what one syllable words mean in a sentence.

We need a two party system at the very least and this last Supreme Court Ruling that Corporations are people and The PACs and Super PACs have changed politics and elections in our Country forever.

It was cool to see Barack Obama win the Presidency and prove to us all that indeed if you study hard and apply yourself, you can someday become President of the United Stayes. What has transpired after he proved it could be done is that the GOP/RNC is working to create enough fear about it happening that they are willing to risk the future of their party I order to make sure it never happens again.

This is the real danger IMO. I'm all for 3rd parties. I personally don't EVER want a one party system. Too much group think involved and the power to enforce that group think. (See China.)

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm all for 3rd parties. I personally don't EVER want a one party system. Too much group think involved and the power to enforce that group think. (See China.)

I am for a more than 3 party system....

[ictsooner7]

Didn't Obama win on an "Anyone But Bush" platform?

Obama was more a product of the Chicago political machine. He was bought and groomed there.

How did that work when bush couldn't run again?

[OU_Sooners75]

How did that work when bush couldn't run again?

And you are forgetting us on the left at the time were saying McCain was a Bush clone....

So the left pretty much ran with a anti-bush crony type of agenda....while Obama's message at first was hope and change, which was a lie, those like moveon.org and other far left dumb**** organizations were all about the anti-bush rhetoric.

[soonerhubs]

Icheban!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTokqeL7sOU

[OU_Sooners75]

embedding disabled...hehe

[soonerhubs]

So am I understanding that the flaw that some folks feel is in the conservative movement is the presence of the Austrian theory of economics?

[OU_Sooners75]

Sounds correct.

[ictsooner7]

So am I understanding that the flaw that some folks feel is in the conservative movement is the presence of the Austrian theory of economics?

NO.....................it is that conservitives don't have an economic policy, you have a political policy. Read the article.

[soonerhubs]

NO.....................it is that conservitives don't have an economic policy, you have a political policy. Read the article.I disagree with your opinion. I feel that they have a different theory. Just because it's not quite your plan doesn't mean it's not a plan, but I think it's time to put you on ignore. You obviously don't contribute much and seem too mean spirited.

[ictsooner7]

I disagree with your opinion. I feel that they have a different theory. Just because it's not quite your plan doesn't mean it's not a plan, but I think it's time to put you on ignore. You obviously don't contribute much and seem too mean spirited.

Of course, I'M too mean spirited. Look at all the nicknames for me. Laughable. Put me on ignore, typical, someone says something you disagree with, you just ignore them.

It was not born of any academic study. He is not a economist, he is a political hack. Do the math, it just doesn't work. The multiplier for consumer spending is at most 1.5 times. If you cut taxes from where it is now, 35% to 30% and a $100 is the savings and ALL of the $100 is spent, then the most you can get is an increase of $150. $150 times 30% is $45. You just lost $55 in revenue. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

[cleller]

How about the way the nutty lefties are instituting this ridiculous "Blame Reagan" nonsense now? Why not just "Blame Kennedy" or "Blame Washington". Somehow Clinton, Frank, and the "everyone can buy a house on the government" regime was skipped over.

Thankfully, alot of us were there to remember the depressing, woeful, desperate days before Reagan salvaged the US. If your can deny the turnaround he gave us, or find fault with it, get on over to Mother Russia. Now they want to bring back the sugartit.

[ictsooner7]

How about the way the nutty lefties are instituting this ridiculous "Blame Reagan" nonsense now? Why not just "Blame Kennedy" or "Blame Washington". Somehow Clinton, Frank, and the "everyone can buy a house on the government" regime was skipped over.

Thankfully, alot of us were there to remember the depressing, woeful, desperate days before Reagan salvaged the US. If your can deny the turnaround he gave us, or find fault with it, get on over to Mother Russia. Now they want to bring back the sugartit.

Look at the facts. Look at GDP growth, look at the debt, look at job creation during reagan and carter. What was the interest rate during carters administration? It was around 6% when he took office and was at almost 20% when he left. Who is in charge of interest rates? The fed, do you know why the fed raised rates? To curb inflation. Do you remember wage and price controls under nixon to try to curb inflation? Do you remember WIN (whip inflation now) buttons under ford? Since i disagree with you I'm somehow a commie. Real bright.

Now you and yours love yourself some obama deficit, reagan tripled it. tripled. Skipping over that? $932 Billion to $2.4 Trillion. $80b a year and falling to $240b a year.

[soonerhubs]

How about the way the nutty lefties are instituting this ridiculous "Blame Reagan" nonsense now? Why not just "Blame Kennedy" or "Blame Washington". Somehow Clinton, Frank, and the "everyone can buy a house on the government" regime was skipped over.

Thankfully, alot of us were there to remember the depressing, woeful, desperate days before Reagan salvaged the US. If your can deny the turnaround he gave us, or find fault with it, get on over to Mother Russia. Now they want to bring back the sugartit.

It's easy (and flawed, I might add) to place all of the credit for successes on one administration just as it is easy to place all of the blame for failures on one administration.

Some folks seem to ignore the various congresses that also served during these times. They also want to imagine that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd never existed. They drink partisan Koolaid from one side or the other, and attack anyone else who doesn't drink that Koolaid. They call folks lemmings while ignoring their own mindless followings of blogs and radio hosts that merely confirm their biases without teaching them anything new. I'm not speaking of only one side. Both sides these folks as a part of their base, and it's tiresome, ignorant, and sad.

They see their party as sacrosanct while attacking the other party as being the only one on the take. Who are we kidding here? They're both corrupt, and if you don't believe it, your naivety certainly knows no limit.

It's rather amusing to hear someone quip about opening a book in one post, only to see them post an uncited blog in another.

I honestly feel there are lessons to be learned by transcending this petty partisan bickering, but I highly doubt some of you could actually take the time to say the words "Good point!" or "You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before."

I know enough to know that some of the Republican's economic policy is flawed. However, I also know that too much regulation can also stifle an economy's growth. It's tough to find a balance, and that's why I am in support of a split set of powers. I'm never a fan of supermajorities because I feel that it eliminates the checks we need to truly pass meaningful and helpful legislation.

Rant over. :D

[ictsooner7]

It's easy (and flawed, I might add) to place all of the credit for successes on one administration just as it is easy to place all of the blame for failures on one administration.

Some folks seem to ignore the various congresses that also served during these times. They also want to imagine that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd never existed. They drink partisan Koolaid from one side or the other, and attack anyone else who doesn't drink that Koolaid. They call folks lemmings while ignoring their own mindless followings of blogs and radio hosts that merely confirm their biases without teaching them anything new. I'm not speaking of only one side. Both sides these folks as a part of their base, and it's tiresome, ignorant, and sad.

They see their party as sacrosanct while attacking the other party as being the only one on the take. Who are we kidding here? They're both corrupt, and if you don't believe it, your naivety certainly knows no limit.

It's rather amusing to hear someone quip about opening a book in one post, only to see them post an uncited blog in another.

I honestly feel there are lessons to be learned by transcending this petty partisan bickering, but I highly doubt some of you could actually take the time to say the words "Good point!" or "You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before."

I know enough to know that some of the Republican's economic policy is flawed. However, I also know that too much regulation can also stifle an economy's growth. It's tough to find a balance, and that's why I am in support of a split set of powers. I'm never a fan of supermajorities because I feel that it eliminates the checks we need to truly pass meaningful and helpful legislation.

Rant over. :D

I agree both are corrupt. I am so massivley disopointed in my party, Democrats, for really ****ing up when they had a chance to make real difference. I blame 49% on obama and 51% on reid. He never should have tighten the useage of reconciliation and never should have taken it off the table so quickly during the health care "debate". Obama should have told him I am the leader of the party and you need to follow my lead or I'm in your state campaigning against you, even for a repub.

[soonercruiser]

When the warning signs were popping up everywhere in 2004/2005, did the Bush administration do anything to slow down the real estate bubble? Did they enforce any of the existing financial regulations?



DUH!
Kool-aid drinker!
Booosh and acabinet went to Congress 17 TIMES!!!
Barney's Frank and Chris Dodd called them scare mongers, and sent them away....saying everything was just fine!
You rememeber that Barney and Chris were in charge of those oversight committees during those years, don't you???

I know that some memories just fade away.
But, these are still available on-line asd videos!
Duh!

Bloomberg: 'Plain and simple,' Congress caused the mortgage crisis ... www.capitalnewyork.com/.../bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-c...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Nov 1, 2011 – On numerous occassions the Bush Administration warned Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had bought up these bad loans, ...

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Youtube ^ | 9-24-08 | Proud To Be Canadian

Posted on Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:10:04 PM by bigbob

The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton and Carter White Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford them -- just like you would expect of socialists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451424/posts

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and ...
► 4:00► 4:00 www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Sep 24, 2008 - 4 min - Uploaded by ProudToBeCanadian
The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny ... Democrats resisted and kept to ...
More videos for Bush administration warns Congress about ... »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Bush Administration Warned Congress Almost 20 Times Reforms Were Needed
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bush-administration-warned-congress-almost-20-times-reforms-were-needed/



http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank

[soonercruiser]

my virtues and values....and all that stuff...the more and more I do not fit in the Democrat party anymore.

My first ever presidential election was 1996 in which I voted for Clinton. I then voted for Gore in 2000. Followed that by voting for Bush in 2004. Last election, I bought into the Obama hope and change lies...and voted for him.

I moved back to Oklahoma since then and registered as a democrat. I think I am going to go down to the courthouse here and register as a republican or independent since my values are leaving the democrat party.

Keep your values!

Don't depend on ANY political party to keep your values and their word!
But, do vote - that is the only weapon we have.

[ictsooner7]

DUH!
Kool-aid drinker!
Booosh and acabinet went to Congress 17 TIMES!!!
Barney's Frank and Chris Dodd called them scare mongers, and sent them away....saying everything was just fine!
You rememeber that Barney and Chris were in charge of those oversight committees during those years, don't you???

I know that some memories just fade away.
But, these are still available on-line asd videos!
Duh!

Bloomberg: 'Plain and simple,' Congress caused the mortgage crisis ... www.capitalnewyork.com/.../bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-c...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Nov 1, 2011 – On numerous occassions the Bush Administration warned Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had bought up these bad loans, ...

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Youtube ^ | 9-24-08 | Proud To Be Canadian

Posted on Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:10:04 PM by bigbob

The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton and Carter White Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford them -- just like you would expect of socialists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451424/posts

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and ...
► 4:00► 4:00 www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Sep 24, 2008 - 4 min - Uploaded by ProudToBeCanadian
The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny ... Democrats resisted and kept to ...
More videos for Bush administration warns Congress about ... »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Bush Administration Warned Congress Almost 20 Times Reforms Were Needed
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/bush-administration-warned-congress-almost-20-times-reforms-were-needed/



http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank


Talk about drinking the kool-aid, you ignore you own parties contribution. Republican senator phil gramm and his wife who was the head of CFTC pushing through to deregulate Derivatives. Gramm is one of the Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives in 1999. As well as ignoring bush's ownership society



"As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”

Looking back, Keith B. Hennessey, Mr. Bush’s current chief economics adviser, says he and his colleagues did the best they could “with the information we had at the time.” But Mr. Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration did not pay more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices. And both Mr. Paulson and his predecessor, John W. Snow, say the housing push went too far.

“The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.”

For much of the Bush presidency, the White House was preoccupied by terrorism and war; on the economic front, its pressing concerns were cutting taxes and privatizing Social Security. The housing market was a bright spot: ever-rising home values kept the economy humming, as owners drew down on their equity to buy consumer goods and pack their children off to college."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all

[diverdog]

How about the way the nutty lefties are instituting this ridiculous "Blame Reagan" nonsense now? Why not just "Blame Kennedy" or "Blame Washington". Somehow Clinton, Frank, and the "everyone can buy a house on the government" regime was skipped over.

Thankfully, alot of us were there to remember the depressing, woeful, desperate days before Reagan salvaged the US. If your can deny the turnaround he gave us, or find fault with it, get on over to Mother Russia. Now they want to bring back the sugartit.

I voted for Reagan twice and overall I liked him as President. The problem that is going on right now is that many of his policies are coming back to bite us in the rear end. The biggest is deficit spending and defense policies.

Reagan did not win the cold war. Americans won the Cold War.

[diverdog]

It's easy (and flawed, I might add) to place all of the credit for successes on one administration just as it is easy to place all of the blame for failures on one administration.

Some folks seem to ignore the various congresses that also served during these times. They also want to imagine that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd never existed. They drink partisan Koolaid from one side or the other, and attack anyone else who doesn't drink that Koolaid. They call folks lemmings while ignoring their own mindless followings of blogs and radio hosts that merely confirm their biases without teaching them anything new. I'm not speaking of only one side. Both sides these folks as a part of their base, and it's tiresome, ignorant, and sad.

They see their party as sacrosanct while attacking the other party as being the only one on the take. Who are we kidding here? They're both corrupt, and if you don't believe it, your naivety certainly knows no limit.

It's rather amusing to hear someone quip about opening a book in one post, only to see them post an uncited blog in another.

I honestly feel there are lessons to be learned by transcending this petty partisan bickering, but I highly doubt some of you could actually take the time to say the words "Good point!" or "You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before."

I know enough to know that some of the Republican's economic policy is flawed. However, I also know that too much regulation can also stifle an economy's growth. It's tough to find a balance, and that's why I am in support of a split set of powers. I'm never a fan of supermajorities because I feel that it eliminates the checks we need to truly pass meaningful and helpful legislation.

Rant over. :D

Good rant.

[pphilfran]

It's easy (and flawed, I might add) to place all of the credit for successes on one administration just as it is easy to place all of the blame for failures on one administration.

Some folks seem to ignore the various congresses that also served during these times. They also want to imagine that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd never existed. They drink partisan Koolaid from one side or the other, and attack anyone else who doesn't drink that Koolaid. They call folks lemmings while ignoring their own mindless followings of blogs and radio hosts that merely confirm their biases without teaching them anything new. I'm not speaking of only one side. Both sides these folks as a part of their base, and it's tiresome, ignorant, and sad.

They see their party as sacrosanct while attacking the other party as being the only one on the take. Who are we kidding here? They're both corrupt, and if you don't believe it, your naivety certainly knows no limit.

It's rather amusing to hear someone quip about opening a book in one post, only to see them post an uncited blog in another.

I honestly feel there are lessons to be learned by transcending this petty partisan bickering, but I highly doubt some of you could actually take the time to say the words "Good point!" or "You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before."

I know enough to know that some of the Republican's economic policy is flawed. However, I also know that too much regulation can also stifle an economy's growth. It's tough to find a balance, and that's why I am in support of a split set of powers. I'm never a fan of supermajorities because I feel that it eliminates the checks we need to truly pass meaningful and helpful legislation.

Rant over. :D

Good points....I never thought of it that way.... :)

[sappstuf]

Sapp:I was with our banks economist last week and they see a 2.5% growth next year. He has been dead on the last 3 years.

So we will see.What do you want to cut?

If you look at the data for tax rates or tax/gdp for as long as we have actual data you'll find that there is no correlation between taxes and economic growth rate for taxes as administered in the United States. On average we grow at about 3.5% over the long term.

Everything. But Obama has already started on the military. So far, a majority l of the spending cuts have come from the military. At the same time, Obamacare has added around $235 billion of spending every year... Until the end of time. New entitlement spending is the last thing that we needed. So scratch off any actual reduction of the deficit and debt with Obamacare.

Both Medicare/Medicaid and SSN both individually take up more of the budget than the military. Cuts will have to come from all three to mean anything... So far only one has been asked to make cuts.. Obama is making spending on healthcare worse.. He successfully bent the cost curve he kept talking about. Too bad he bent it the wrong way...

Meanwhile SS sits off in the corner getting worse by the day, it is already in the red forever.. You never hear Obama talk about it.. Which should be a crime. Obama has done nothing but make SSN more insolvent, faster, by insisting on the tax holiday, leaving it to our kids to clean up the mess.

Hope and change indeed.

[pphilfran]

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that projected non-dedicated sources of revenues -- primarily general revenues -- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. That threshold was in fact breached for the first time in fiscal 2010. A Presidential proposal is required by law in response to the latest warning..

Conclusion

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.

[soonerhubs]

Good points....I never thought of it that way.... :)

This is why I like you. :)

[sappstuf]

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that projected non-dedicated sources of revenues -- primarily general revenues -- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. That threshold was in fact breached for the first time in fiscal 2010. A Presidential proposal is required by law in response to the latest warning..

Conclusion

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.

Pfffttttt... It isn't a REAL law or there would be consequences for breaking it.

A real press would hold their feet to the fire and would be asking if the administration is simply incompetent or thinks itself above the law. Regardless of party.

[pphilfran]

That jumped out at me...never heard of the thing...

http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=282515

March 1, 2012



President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Following last year’s Medicare Trustees’ report, we wrote to you expressing our concern about the impending insolvency of the program’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. We also asked that, in accordance with current-law requirements, your Administration submit to Congress a proposal to address the Medicare funding warning issued in last year’s Trustees’ report. To date, we have received neither a response nor solution.

The law requires you to submit a legislative proposal to Congress following a warning by the Medicare Trustees triggered by a determination in two consecutive years that general revenues will account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays for the current fiscal year or any of the next six fiscal years. Specifically, Section 1105 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code requires:

If there is a Medicare funding warning under section 801(a)(2) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 made in a year, the President shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day period beginning on the date of the budget submission to Congress under subsection (a) for the succeeding year, proposed legislation to respond to such warning.

Last year marked the sixth consecutive finding of excessive general-revenue funding and the fifth consecutive funding warning. During recent testimony before the House Budget Committee, Medicare’s Chief Actuary suggested that it is likely this year’s Trustees report will issue its seventh consecutive such finding. As if this weren’t a clear enough call to action, your own Secretary of Health and Human Services testified last year before the same committee that “the traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service program is unsustainable.”

Mr. President, the Medicare Trustees, Medicare’s Chief Actuary, and your own Administration have all sounded the alarm about Medicare’s financial distress. Yet, the budget you submitted to Congress this month continues to punt on addressing the foremost fiscal threat to seniors, physicians, and the national balance sheet. Not only does this violate the statutory obligations laid out under current law, but it also threatens the sustainability of health care security for today’s seniors and future Medicare beneficiaries.

You have often asked for Congress to “put politics aside” and solve the pressing issues facing our country. We would ask that you join us in this challenge and put a plan on the table. We look forward to receiving legislation to address the Medicare funding warning in the near future.

Very truly yours,
Senator Jeff Sessions
Representative Paul Ryan

[jkjsooner]

Some folks seem to ignore the various congresses that also served during these times. They also want to imagine that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd never existed.

I think Bush failed us during the real estate bubble. That doesn't mean I hold back my criticism of Frank or Dodd. I also don't hold back my criticism of Greenspan and his anti-regulatory and low interest rate policy.

While neither Bush nor Frank/Dodd have direct control over the Fed, they were all happy to reap the benefits of the economic boom caused by the low interest rates.

[jkjsooner]

DUH!
Kool-aid drinker!
Booosh and acabinet went to Congress 17 TIMES!!!
Barney's Frank and Chris Dodd called them scare mongers, and sent them away....saying everything was just fine!

First off, why don't you do a history search and find all the times I've been very critical of Frank and Dodd, the implicit guarantee given to the GSE's, and the Clinton administration before you call me a Kool-aid drinker?

You can also find plenty of rants from me about how the government's attempts to create affordability usually have the opposite affects by stoking inflation. That is true for both housing and education.

Your whole rant is completely off the mark. The GSE's did not cause the financial crisis. They are a problem but the majority of the lending when things went crazy was from private entitities who sold off the mortgages to Wall Street firms who packages them up in securities which were bought by unsuspecting investors.

This is from the bipartisan financial crisis inquiry commission:


In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world.


Yet we do not accept the view that regulators lacked the power to protect the financial
system. They had ample power in many arenas and they chose not to use it.


Second, we examined the role of the GSEs, with Fannie Mae serving as the Commission’s
case study in this area. These government-sponsored enterprises had a
deeply flawed business model as publicly traded corporations with the implicit backing
of and subsidies from the federal government and with a public mission. Their
$5 trillion mortgage exposure and market position were significant. In 2005 and
2006, they decided to ramp up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages, just
as the housing market was peaking. They used their political power for decades to
ward off effective regulation and oversight—spending $164 million on lobbying from
1999 to 2008. They suffered from many of the same failures of corporate governance
and risk management as the Commission discovered in other financial firms.
Through the third quarter of 2010, the Treasury Department had provided $151 billion
in financial support to keep them afloat.
We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary
cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value
throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses
that were central to the financial crisis.


http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf


The fact is that the anti-regulation stance we've taken over the last 30 years was the main contributing factor to the financial crisis. it was either a result of a flawed belief in financial markets to self-regulate (Clinton/Bush/Greenspan) or a consequence of being bought off (Dodd/Frank).

[jkjsooner]

And cruiser, your links do show that some in the Bush administration did warn about the growing size of the GSE's and proposed more regulation on them. That is good and in this respect they deserve credit and Dodd/Frank deserve a lot of blame.

However, this was not sufficient. The administration (and previous ones) needed to enforce existing regulation and in some case create new regulation for the non GSE financial firms.

This all points to both sides failing because of their unique philosophical bents. The Bush administration wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie not because they believed in regulation but because they had a problem with the existence of these entities. (At least that's my opinion.) Dodd and Frank wanted to stop regulation mostly because they were paid by these entities to do so but also from their philosophical affinity towards the role of these entities.

[pphilfran]

Not enforcing current regs was as big a problem as not having regs...

We are terrible at auditing...

[soonerhubs]

I think Bush failed us during the real estate bubble. That doesn't mean I hold back my criticism of Frank or Dodd. I also don't hold back my criticism of Greenspan and his anti-regulatory and low interest rate policy.

While neither Bush nor Frank/Dodd have direct control over the Fed, they were all happy to reap the benefits of the economic boom caused by the low interest rates.

You sir, make a great point.

I've come to see that most of these problems and challenges are a product of various political and social feedback loops. In essence, I feel that many of the partisan conflicts are a product of not being able to view things from a higher level of organization and order.

I'm a huge fan of General Systems Theory for this very reason. Here's a pretty good paper (http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/viewArticle/20)on systems theory. Also, here's the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory)article, that is quite accurate when compared to the work and writings of various Systems theorists.

[dwarthog]

Not enforcing current regs was as big a problem as not having regs...

We are terrible at auditing...

Inaction has been the preferred course by this congress as demonstrated by the Senates complete lack of passing a budget, as is the case with previous congresses or presidents.

They have little desire to be held accountable for actions, so "letting it ride" by kicking the can down the road seems to create the level of contention among the various interest groups necessary for them to continue to get enough votes for the next election cycle.

IMO, It'll continue this way as long as the partisan bickering continues.

[C&CDean]

All the "this party that party stuff" is so laughable anymore only a loon would buy into any of it.

Being the simple man I am, it's like this for me: The machine is broken. It's actually beyond broken. It's a steaming wreck. It is way beyond salvageable. It's toast. Finished. The mother****ing end. That's all Folks...

Listening to people espouse "their side" or belittle "the other side" just makes me wanna hurl. Yes, I'm a conservative. Yes, I think the loudmouth moonbats from the conservative side of the aisle are tools. I also think the loudmouth moonbats from the other side of the aisle are just as big of tools.

What's the answer? Blow the mother****er up? Anarchy? A coup? At this point I'm in. I'm even ready to burn the ****ing constitution and start over if that's what it takes. "Washington, DC" is a brokedown old ho who needs to be shot. In the face.

Carry on with your silliness.

[diverdog]

All the "this party that party stuff" is so laughable anymore only a loon would buy into any of it.

Being the simple man I am, it's like this for me: The machine is broken. It's actually beyond broken. It's a steaming wreck. It is way beyond salvageable. It's toast. Finished. The mother****ing end. That's all Folks...

Listening to people espouse "their side" or belittle "the other side" just makes me wanna hurl. Yes, I'm a conservative. Yes, I think the loudmouth moonbats from the conservative side of the aisle are tools. I also think the loudmouth moonbats from the other side of the aisle are just as big of tools.

What's the answer? Blow the mother****er up? Anarchy? A coup? At this point I'm in. I'm even ready to burn the ****ing constitution and start over if that's what it takes. "Washington, DC" is a brokedown old ho who needs to be shot. In the face.

Carry on with your silliness.

Dean what would you put in its place? As I see it the system is a mess but it is our mess. There is much worse out there.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I concur Dean.

Grandad Ferguson(RIP), told me back in 89, "There will be another revolt, not in my life time, but in your's." He's probably right, but in the meantime, getting the moonbats fired up over their silly *** idea's is pretty fun:D

[pphilfran]

One, three, or ten parties won't make a difference as long as the party is the priority and not the people...

[Turd_Ferguson]

One, three, or ten parties won't make a difference as long as the party is the priority and not the people...Term limits for the lot of'm...

[C&CDean]

Dean what would you put in its place? As I see it the system is a mess but it is our mess. There is much worse out there.

Sure there's worse, and I am not even sure there's any better. Alls I know is this one is a POS and it is NOT working anymore. Term limits, etc. would be a start, but when you've got to be a multi-multi millionaire to even have a shot at POTUS you know it's a ****ed up deal. Debates, campaigns, he said she said, finger-pointing, etc. is all a bunch of crap. If anyone is stupid enough to believe a single word of any of it then they deserve what they get. If someone actually thinks Obama is doing a good job; or if you actually think Romney/Grinch/Santorum or any of the dildonic disasters running against him are worthy of a vote then you're one ignorant mother****er. They should all be tarred and feathered and run outta town on a rail. I want a common man leading this country, not a rich puppet.

[Midtowner]

Term limits for the lot of'm...

That won't fix things. Sadly, the only real check to corporate lobbyist power in Congress is the fact that members of Congress themselves are able to consolidate electoral power on their own to a certain degree. Folks like Sen. Coburn are untouchable because of that, I don't care how much money his opponent has, his constituents love him and he can't be touched.

Get rid of the ability to have men (or women) in power be able to have their own bases of power, their own 'kingdoms,' so to speak, and you're turning over the only institutional control and memory over to the lobbyists. This has happened in Oklahoma and this is what will happen in Congress if we let it. It's a horrible idea.

That said, I don't have any great alternatives other than to dispose with the party system entirely. I don't want three or ten parties, I want none. Everyone runs on their own merit and ideology.

Aside from that, if you scrap the Constitution at this point and let lobbyists get a say on revising the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, etc., God help us all.

[StoopTroup]

Yup. Getting rich because you are a Politician isn't how you made it in this Country back in the day. You made it because folks learned to trust you because of the job you did as a Civil Servant.

You used to build up a business and become Wealthy and pass on your Business to your Family. Now they just fight over it all until there is nothing left.

You used to work for a Corporation and learn how to create a Business of your own but now as a CEO you stay until you've raped it and made yourself Wealthy and Powerful. Regular Businesses are scared of you as you have the power and money to buy them up and make them disappear. It's great if you don't care what happens to your Company but if you are bought off because you are scared they will ruin you.....you have no choice but to take the offer and just go play golf and stay out of their way. Your Wife can maybe open a dress shop or you can go run a Non-Profit Company and take a $250,000 Salary to keep things floating.

We need to make sure that you can one day become POTUS if you go to school and study hard. We also need to make sure Small Businesses can flourish without being attacked by Monsters. I also think we need to consider making Mass Transportation in this Country Regulated again because Deregulation hasn't improved our Mass Transportation in this Country. It's only made some folks Wealthy as they have tried to make some Giants while lining Upper Management's Pockets while the Companies under them are milked for every penny. It's like they were raided from the inside instead of the Outside by a Corporate Raider that intends to chop it up for a 100-200 % return. The Romney's need to be told enough is enough....not made POTUS. Nothing good will come of putting Mitt Romney in the White House.

[jkjsooner]

Inaction has been the preferred course by this congress as demonstrated by the Senates complete lack of passing a budget, as is the case with previous congresses or presidents.

What does that have to do with enforcing existing regulations - a function of the executive branch?

[champions77]

That Teabaggers are really concerned about the country and not just trying to get power to implement their real agenda of cutting taxes to the wealthy, destroying Medicare and Social Security.

OMG Never though I would see the day in which folks for a government; that spends within their budget, upholds the US Constitution, maintains a strong military and defends it's borders, would be demonized and ridiculed. Hey your man cut Medicare spending by 500 billion to help fund his healthcare disaster. Did you complain about that? By doing nothing with Social Security and Medicare, they will implode. Now that's leadership.

70% of the federal income tax burden falls on the top 10% of income earners. That's not their fair share?

[sappstuf]

Not enforcing current regs was as big a problem as not having regs...

We are terrible at auditing...

When the President and Senate don't follow the law when it is inconvenient for them and they aren't held accountable, I don't hold much hope for any other auditing..

[dwarthog]

What does that have to do with enforcing existing regulations - a function of the executive branch?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

In 2010 the Federal Register was 81,000 pages of regulations to keep folks in check. No doubt at any one point in time each and everyone of us is running afoul of some Federal regulation, like expelling carbon dioxide when we breathe.

It's probably safe to say there is some level of overlap or even outright duplication which an audit would identify and potentially make life easier for folks who have to deal with different agencies charged with enforcing similar regulations but to different result requirements.

No doubt there is some level of "selective" enforcement or compliance as well.

[jkjsooner]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

In 2010 the Federal Register was 81,000 pages of regulations to keep folks in check. No doubt at any one point in time each and everyone of us is running afoul of some Federal regulation, like expelling carbon dioxide when we breathe.

It's probably safe to say there is some level of overlap or even outright duplication which an audit would identify and potentially make life easier for folks who have to deal with different agencies charged with enforcing similar regulations but to different result requirements.

No doubt there is some level of "selective" enforcement or compliance as well.

Changing the subject I see. Your quote which was in response to a post about not enforcing existing regulations....


Inaction has been the preferred course by this congress as demonstrated by the Senates complete lack of passing a budget, as is the case with previous congresses or presidents.

I correctly pointed out that the inaction was on the part of the executive branch not congress. None of that has anything to do with there being too many regulations.

Rather than admitting your comment was irrelevant you decided to change the subject.

[dwarthog]

Changing the subject I see. Your quote which was in response to a post about not enforcing existing regulations....



I correctly pointed out that the inaction was on the part of the executive branch not congress. None of that has anything to do with there being too many regulations.

Rather than admitting your comment was irrelevant you decided to change the subject.

You are correct, my mistake.

[hawaii 5-0]

Yep, let's get rid of everybody up there on Capital Hill.


Everybody except Tom Coburn, that is.

Can ya have it both ways?

5-0

[C&CDean]

Yep, let's get rid of everybody up there on Capital Hill.


Everybody except Tom Coburn, that is.

Can ya have it both ways?

5-0

That'd be a good start.

[ictsooner7]

OMG Never though I would see the day in which folks for a government; that spends within their budget, upholds the US Constitution, maintains a strong military and defends it's borders, would be demonized and ridiculed. Hey your man cut Medicare spending by 500 billion to help fund his healthcare disaster. Did you complain about that? By doing nothing with Social Security and Medicare, they will implode. Now that's leadership.

70% of the federal income tax burden falls on the top 10% of income earners. That's not their fair share?

"cut Medicare spending by 500 billion to help fund his healthcare disaster" taken straight from rightwing talking points - and now the truth


"So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare.

Still, where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/16/mitt-romney/500-billion-medicare-obamacare-romney-says/

[champions77]

"cut Medicare spending by 500 billion to help fund his healthcare disaster" taken straight from rightwing talking points - and now the truth


"So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare.

Still, where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/16/mitt-romney/500-billion-medicare-obamacare-romney-says/

So in your world, Medicare, medicaid and Social Security are all doing just fine. No problems whatsoever? I love you lefties. The government rolls out more and more programs, of which 100% are poorly managed, exceed budget projections 100% of the time, and have been shown to be inefficient, fraught with waste, fraud and abuse to the nth degree. But if someone comes along and makes any effort to reform these poorly run, mismanaged programs, and the dems on que start in with the attacks, telling the recipients that the GOP is out to destroy your federal program. And you defend this? This is the kind of things the teaparty deplores, and they are bad?

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm all for term limits too. 10 years for House, 12 years for Senate, them you're outta there.

Maybe even give government pensions on how effective one does while serving.

5-0