RNC or Soviet Politburo?

[SicEmBaylor]

A friend once told me that if I wanted to change the GOP, it should be done from within. I barely believed that statement then; I absolutely do not believe it tonight.

For almost twelve years discontent with the Republican Party from Republicans has been steadily rising as we watched a GOP controlled Congress, Republican President, and conservative majority on the Supreme Court waste their rare majority. We shook our heads as so-called "conservatives" spent our nation into further debt, increased entitlements, created new Federal bureaucracies and agencies, eroded civil liberties, and embroiled us in a costly and unnecessary mid-east war. When there was talk of bolting the Republican Party, I was not alone when told to stick it out and "change the party from within."

Some left while many stayed. Those that stayed rallied around a Congressman named Ron Paul that spent his career speaking and espousing the virtues of the Constitution, limited-government, individual liberty, sound fiscal policy, and a sane foreign policy. They were joined by millions of Americans who had no history in the Republican Party but were nonetheless moved to take up the cause of liberty. Ron Paul brought new people into the political process while introducing many of them to the Republican Party. Some of these people had never had a candidate speak to inner most beliefs they held but had not heard articulated.

While running for President, Ron Paul stayed true to his principles and never wavered for the sake of personal gain even when it was clear he would be more successful by abandoning his foreign policy views for accepted neoconservative orthodoxy. But, a funny thing happened while refusing to kowtow to the Republican establishment -- his support grew. His support grew to the point that his political rallies were drawing thousands and even tens of thousands of people. His supporters are known throughout the political and media world as being the most active, the best organized, and (imo) the best informed activists and supporters in politics. Ron Paul participated in debate after debate -- universally maligned by his opponents in 2008, by 2012 his opponents began to sing his praises. Romney and Gingrich both acknowledged his superior knowledge on constitutional and monetary policy. All opposed him but none of them disputed his commitment to his convictions.

As the 2012 primary season got into full swing, Paul's supporters got to work. They worked smartly and diligently mounting a phenomenal campaign at state caucuses and state convictions to win delegates. Amazingly, they succeeded in winning a plurality or major portion of the delegates in half a dozen states across the country. They broke absolutely no rules in this effort; let me repeat -- they broke NO rules. The Republican National Committee along with the Romney campaign nonetheless made every effort to deny Ron Paul the delegates he rightfully won and to deny him a place on the convention's Presidential ballot. They decided to arbitrarily change the rules to strip Maine (one of Paul's states) of 10 Ron Paul delegates and give those delegates to Mitt Romney instead. Nevada, Alaska, the US Virgin Islands, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, and Oregon bandied together to nominate Paul for President from the floor. The rules of the Republican Party state that a candidate can be nominated with the support of 5 states -- having met this threshold, the RNC again changed the rules to require 8 states...one more than Ron Paul had all for the purpose of denying Ron Paul his rightful and earned spot at the convention. To add salt to the wound, the Romney campaign supported a change to party rules that would allow the winner of a state primary to pick his own delegates for the convention. This would effectively make the party a "top-down" operation that would have denied grass roots activists their spot at the table.

The party and the Romney campaign took these extraordinary steps in the name of "party unity." Yet, they seem to forget and not care that this is a party convention and not a coronation. There have been other political parties that have demanded absolute lock-step unanimous agreement and support among its members. I could list many of these same transgressions and many would be hard pressed to recognize the difference between the Republican Party and the old Soviet Politburo. It's astounding that a political party, supposedly made up of conservatives, would be so hostile to someone who espouses the principles of individual liberty and limited-government. It's astounding that a political party would treat a man who has been a Republican for 30+ years in this way. And, yet, it is not that surprising.

There is barely a paper's thickness worth of difference between the two candidates in the polls. The consensus seems to be that in this election there are very few undecideds; the conventional wisdom is that GOTV efforts on each side will be the difference between winning or losing. It would seem to me that given this political climate, the GOP and Romney campaign would be embracing their libertarian members who are better organized and far more exuberant than the typical Romney supporter. Yet, even Newt Gingrich called the moves by the Romney campaign "unnecessarily provocative." In addition, Paul supporters provide a narrow "beach head" in typically blue-states in New England and the West Coast. They would have provided an excellent opportunity to expand the Republican Party in those states. All of that potential has been wasted for the sake of having a coronation rather than a political convention.

The reality is that before this convention, I had made the decision to vote for Mitt Romney despite my misgivings about him. It seemed at that point that the Romney campaign was willing to embrace some of Paul's ideas and welcome his supporters to the fold. If that had happened, I would have been a committed Romney supporter by the end of this convention. As it is, I simply cannot support Mitt Romney. I still hope he unseats one of the worst 3 President's in American history, but I cannot mark my ballot in his favor. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has been denied a place on the Oklahoma ballot. I do not believe that Oklahoma allows write-in candidates; nonetheless, on election day I will have a pen in my hand with a paper ballot. For President, I will write the words "Gary Johnson" across the top and feel proud for supporting a candidate that embraces me and my ideas rather than treat me as a political leper.

[rock on sooner]

Hey, Sicem, quick, move to Iowa, Johnson got on the ballot here....

[sappstuf]

A friend once told me that if I wanted to change the GOP, it should be done from within. I barely believed that statement then; I absolutely do not believe it tonight.

For almost twelve years discontent with the Republican Party from Republicans has been steadily rising as we watched a GOP controlled Congress, Republican President, and conservative majority on the Supreme Court waste their rare majority. We shook our heads as so-called "conservatives" spent our nation into further debt, increased entitlements, created new Federal bureaucracies and agencies, eroded civil liberties, and embroiled us in a costly and unnecessary mid-east war. When there was talk of bolting the Republican Party, I was not alone when told to stick it out and "change the party from within."

Some left while many stayed. Those that stayed rallied around a Congressman named Ron Paul that spent his career speaking and espousing the virtues of the Constitution, limited-government, individual liberty, sound fiscal policy, and a sane foreign policy. They were joined by millions of Americans who had no history in the Republican Party but were nonetheless moved to take up the cause of liberty. Ron Paul brought new people into the political process while introducing many of them to the Republican Party. Some of these people had never had a candidate speak to inner most beliefs they held but had not heard articulated.

While running for President, Ron Paul stayed true to his principles and never wavered for the sake of personal gain even when it was clear he would be more successful by abandoning his foreign policy views for accepted neoconservative orthodoxy. But, a funny thing happened while refusing to kowtow to the Republican establishment -- his support grew. His support grew to the point that his political rallies were drawing thousands and even tens of thousands of people. His supporters are known throughout the political and media world as being the most active, the best organized, and (imo) the best informed activists and supporters in politics. Ron Paul participated in debate after debate -- universally maligned by his opponents in 2008, by 2012 his opponents began to sing his praises. Romney and Gingrich both acknowledged his superior knowledge on constitutional and monetary policy. All opposed him but none of them disputed his commitment to his convictions.

As the 2012 primary season got into full swing, Paul's supporters got to work. They worked smartly and diligently mounting a phenomenal campaign at state caucuses and state convictions to win delegates. Amazingly, they succeeded in winning a plurality or major portion of the delegates in half a dozen states across the country. They broke absolutely no rules in this effort; let me repeat -- they broke NO rules. The Republican National Committee along with the Romney campaign nonetheless made every effort to deny Ron Paul the delegates he rightfully won and to deny him a place on the convention's Presidential ballot. They decided to arbitrarily change the rules to strip Maine (one of Paul's states) of 10 Ron Paul delegates and give those delegates to Mitt Romney instead. Nevada, Alaska, the US Virgin Islands, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, and Oregon bandied together to nominate Paul for President from the floor. The rules of the Republican Party state that a candidate can be nominated with the support of 5 states -- having met this threshold, the RNC again changed the rules to require 8 states...one more than Ron Paul had all for the purpose of denying Ron Paul his rightful and earned spot at the convention. To add salt to the wound, the Romney campaign supported a change to party rules that would allow the winner of a state primary to pick his own delegates for the convention. This would effectively make the party a "top-down" operation that would have denied grass roots activists their spot at the table.

The party and the Romney campaign took these extraordinary steps in the name of "party unity." Yet, they seem to forget and not care that this is a party convention and not a coronation. There have been other political parties that have demanded absolute lock-step unanimous agreement and support among its members. I could list many of these same transgressions and many would be hard pressed to recognize the difference between the Republican Party and the old Soviet Politburo. It's astounding that a political party, supposedly made up of conservatives, would be so hostile to someone who espouses the principles of individual liberty and limited-government. It's astounding that a political party would treat a man who has been a Republican for 30+ years in this way. And, yet, it is not that surprising.

There is barely a paper's thickness worth of difference between the two candidates in the polls. The consensus seems to be that in this election there are very few undecideds; the conventional wisdom is that GOTV efforts on each side will be the difference between winning or losing. It would seem to me that given this political climate, the GOP and Romney campaign would be embracing their libertarian members who are better organized and far more exuberant than the typical Romney supporter. Yet, even Newt Gingrich called the moves by the Romney campaign "unnecessarily provocative." In addition, Paul supporters provide a narrow "beach head" in typically blue-states in New England and the West Coast. They would have provided an excellent opportunity to expand the Republican Party in those states. All of that potential has been wasted for the sake of having a coronation rather than a political convention.

The reality is that before this convention, I had made the decision to vote for Mitt Romney despite my misgivings about him. It seemed at that point that the Romney campaign was willing to embrace some of Paul's ideas and welcome his supporters to the fold. If that had happened, I would have been a committed Romney supporter by the end of this convention. As it is, I simply cannot support Mitt Romney. I still hope he unseats one of the worst 3 President's in American history, but I cannot mark my ballot in his favor. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has been denied a place on the Oklahoma ballot. I do not believe that Oklahoma allows write-in candidates; nonetheless, on election day I will have a pen in my hand with a paper ballot. For President, I will write the words "Gary Johnson" across the top and feel proud for supporting a candidate that embraces me and my ideas rather than treat me as a political leper.

If Romney vowed to nominate Paul as Treasury Secretary, would that bring you onboard?

[SicEmBaylor]

If Romney vowed to nominate Paul as Treasury Secretary, would that bring you onboard?

Highly unlikely. What good would Paul be as TresSec? He isn't crafting monetary policy, he'd have no control over other domestic policy that's important to him, and he'd have zero input on foreign policy.

The thing is -- it isn't really about Paul. I love Paul because of the ideas and principles he communicates but it isn't really about him...he's a messenger not the messiah.

[cleller]

Highly unlikely. What good would Paul be as TresSec? He isn't crafting monetary policy, he'd have no control over other domestic policy that's important to him, and he'd have zero input on foreign policy.

The thing is -- it isn't really about Paul. I love Paul because of the ideas and principles he communicates but it isn't really about him...he's a messenger not the messiah.

I guess you'll just have to settle for four more years, then.

[Ton Loc]

You won't be alone writing-in Gary Johnson. Plus, I live in OK - Robotic Romney is winning.

[FaninAma]

Highly unlikely. What good would Paul be as TresSec? He isn't crafting monetary policy, he'd have no control over other domestic policy that's important to him, and he'd have zero input on foreign policy.

The thing is -- it isn't really about Paul. I love Paul because of the ideas and principles he communicates but it isn't really about him...he's a messenger not the messiah.

I am right there with you on your sentiments about how the GOP has treated Paul supporters throughout the primaries and the convention. But your statement that Paul as the Secretary of Treasury wouldn't have an impact is silly, to say the least.

How much damage has Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson done to future generations with their crony capatilism? How much further in debt has the Fed placed my kids with the assistance and complicity of the Treasury department of the United States? Allowing another ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs or former governor of one the Fed banks to assume the position would be almost as disasterous as having Obama re-elected. In fact, if Romney is elected we will see pretty quickly whether he is serious on changing the climate in Washington regarding economic policy by who he appoints as Secretary of Treasury or if he follows through with his promise to fire Bernanke.

I do not like Romney. I do like Paul Ryan. If the GOP turns down the spineless path tread by George HW Bush and subsequently Bush junior(especially on economic policy) I will abandon the GOP and vote the strict Independent/Libertarian ticket.

I will vote for Romney in this election because he and Ryan hold out at least a glimmer of hope in controlling entitlement spending which is crushing our country and leaving my kids' futures in serious peeril. With Obama there is no chance any serious budget restraint will be instituted and I fully expect the United States to follow Europe into economic chaos by the end of the decade in that scenario.

[SicEmBaylor]

I am right there with you on your sentiments about how the GOP has treated Paul suppoerters throughout the primaries and the convention. But your statement that Paul as the Secretary of Treasury wouldn't have an impact is silly, to say the least.

How much damage has Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson done to future generations with their crony capatilism? How much further in debt has the Fed placed my kids in with the assistance of the Treasury department of the Unitied States? Allowing another ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs or former governor of one the Fed banks to assume the position would be almost as disasterous as having Obama re-elected. In fact, if Romney is elected we will see pretty quickly whether he is serious on changing the climate in Washington regarding economic policy by who he appoints as Secretary of Treasury or if he follows through with his promise to fire Bernanke.

I do not like Romney. I do like Paul Ryan. If the GOP turns down the spineless path tread by George HW BVush and subsequently Bush junior(especially on economic policy) I will abandon the GOP and vote the strict Independent/Libertarian ticket.

I will vote for Romney in this election because he and Ryan hold out at least a glimmer of hope in controlling entitlement spending which is crushing our country and leaving my kids' futures in serious peeril. With Obama there is no chance any serious budget restraint will be instituted.
Geithner and Paulson have done that level of damage because it's with the blessing and under the direction of Obama. I don't think the results would be much different under Obama regardless of who you plugged into those positions. The same is true of Romney unless Romney gave Ron Paul and Paul Ryan carte blanche with economic policy but that isn't Romney's style. And, in any case, Ron Paul would never accepted even if it was offered.

[FaninAma]

Geithner and Paulson have done that level of damage because it's with the blessing and under the direction of Obama. I don't think the results would be much different under Obama regardless of who you plugged into those positions. The same is true of Romney unless Romney gave Ron Paul and Paul Ryan carte blanche with economic policy but that isn't Romney's style. And, in any case, Ron Paul would never accepted even if it was offered.

I agree that there wouldn't be a differenc under Obama because he would never appoint a man with principles to the position. I disagree that Paul wouldn't accept the position. He would understand that he would have more influence over the Fed and and economic direction of this country in that office than serving out his remaining years as a Congressman. He would accept the challenge.

If Romney betrays the economic conservatives in his party and the growing libertarian faction he will be a one term president. But as long as there is a glimmer of hope that things might change I will grasp it. To do otherwise is to condemn my kids to trillions more in debt and a crippled country. In other words we will become just like Europe.....a shell of the country that led the world through the last century. We will become this century's version of Great Britain if the course isn't changed.

Voting for Gary Johnson in this election holds out zero chance that the course will be changed. Voting for Romney who had the courage to put Ryan on the ticket does hold out a glimmer of hope. If somehow Ron or Rand Paul could be brought aboard in some meaningful capacity that would give me even more hope.

[okie52]

A friend once told me that if I wanted to change the GOP, it should be done from within. I barely believed that statement then; I absolutely do not believe it tonight.

For almost twelve years discontent with the Republican Party from Republicans has been steadily rising as we watched a GOP controlled Congress, Republican President, and conservative majority on the Supreme Court waste their rare majority. We shook our heads as so-called "conservatives" spent our nation into further debt, increased entitlements, created new Federal bureaucracies and agencies, eroded civil liberties, and embroiled us in a costly and unnecessary mid-east war. When there was talk of bolting the Republican Party, I was not alone when told to stick it out and "change the party from within."

Some left while many stayed. Those that stayed rallied around a Congressman named Ron Paul that spent his career speaking and espousing the virtues of the Constitution, limited-government, individual liberty, sound fiscal policy, and a sane foreign policy. They were joined by millions of Americans who had no history in the Republican Party but were nonetheless moved to take up the cause of liberty. Ron Paul brought new people into the political process while introducing many of them to the Republican Party. Some of these people had never had a candidate speak to inner most beliefs they held but had not heard articulated.

While running for President, Ron Paul stayed true to his principles and never wavered for the sake of personal gain even when it was clear he would be more successful by abandoning his foreign policy views for accepted neoconservative orthodoxy. But, a funny thing happened while refusing to kowtow to the Republican establishment -- his support grew. His support grew to the point that his political rallies were drawing thousands and even tens of thousands of people. His supporters are known throughout the political and media world as being the most active, the best organized, and (imo) the best informed activists and supporters in politics. Ron Paul participated in debate after debate -- universally maligned by his opponents in 2008, by 2012 his opponents began to sing his praises. Romney and Gingrich both acknowledged his superior knowledge on constitutional and monetary policy. All opposed him but none of them disputed his commitment to his convictions.

As the 2012 primary season got into full swing, Paul's supporters got to work. They worked smartly and diligently mounting a phenomenal campaign at state caucuses and state convictions to win delegates. Amazingly, they succeeded in winning a plurality or major portion of the delegates in half a dozen states across the country. They broke absolutely no rules in this effort; let me repeat -- they broke NO rules. The Republican National Committee along with the Romney campaign nonetheless made every effort to deny Ron Paul the delegates he rightfully won and to deny him a place on the convention's Presidential ballot. They decided to arbitrarily change the rules to strip Maine (one of Paul's states) of 10 Ron Paul delegates and give those delegates to Mitt Romney instead. Nevada, Alaska, the US Virgin Islands, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, and Oregon bandied together to nominate Paul for President from the floor. The rules of the Republican Party state that a candidate can be nominated with the support of 5 states -- having met this threshold, the RNC again changed the rules to require 8 states...one more than Ron Paul had all for the purpose of denying Ron Paul his rightful and earned spot at the convention. To add salt to the wound, the Romney campaign supported a change to party rules that would allow the winner of a state primary to pick his own delegates for the convention. This would effectively make the party a "top-down" operation that would have denied grass roots activists their spot at the table.

The party and the Romney campaign took these extraordinary steps in the name of "party unity." Yet, they seem to forget and not care that this is a party convention and not a coronation. There have been other political parties that have demanded absolute lock-step unanimous agreement and support among its members. I could list many of these same transgressions and many would be hard pressed to recognize the difference between the Republican Party and the old Soviet Politburo. It's astounding that a political party, supposedly made up of conservatives, would be so hostile to someone who espouses the principles of individual liberty and limited-government. It's astounding that a political party would treat a man who has been a Republican for 30+ years in this way. And, yet, it is not that surprising.

There is barely a paper's thickness worth of difference between the two candidates in the polls. The consensus seems to be that in this election there are very few undecideds; the conventional wisdom is that GOTV efforts on each side will be the difference between winning or losing. It would seem to me that given this political climate, the GOP and Romney campaign would be embracing their libertarian members who are better organized and far more exuberant than the typical Romney supporter. Yet, even Newt Gingrich called the moves by the Romney campaign "unnecessarily provocative." In addition, Paul supporters provide a narrow "beach head" in typically blue-states in New England and the West Coast. They would have provided an excellent opportunity to expand the Republican Party in those states. All of that potential has been wasted for the sake of having a coronation rather than a political convention.

The reality is that before this convention, I had made the decision to vote for Mitt Romney despite my misgivings about him. It seemed at that point that the Romney campaign was willing to embrace some of Paul's ideas and welcome his supporters to the fold. If that had happened, I would have been a committed Romney supporter by the end of this convention. As it is, I simply cannot support Mitt Romney. I still hope he unseats one of the worst 3 President's in American history, but I cannot mark my ballot in his favor. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has been denied a place on the Oklahoma ballot. I do not believe that Oklahoma allows write-in candidates; nonetheless, on election day I will have a pen in my hand with a paper ballot. For President, I will write the words "Gary Johnson" across the top and feel proud for supporting a candidate that embraces me and my ideas rather than treat me as a political leper.

Well Sic em, I know you have been an ardent anti illegal immigration proponent as well as an anti legal immigration proponent. You couldn't find a candidate more diametrically opposed to those views than Gary Johnson.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well Sic em, I know you have been an ardent anti illegal immigration proponent as well as an anti legal immigration proponent. You couldn't find a candidate more diametrically opposed to those views than Gary Johnson.
Aye. Most Libertarians share his view. I'm not a strict Libertarian -- I support libertarians because, these days, they're the only people truly committed to limited-government and individual freedom but I remain a paleoconservative.

Strictly speaking, I'm also not a free-trader.

[okie52]

Aye. Most Libertarians share his view. I'm not a strict Libertarian -- I support libertarians because, these days, they're the only people truly committed to limited-government and individual freedom but I remain a paleoconservative.

Strictly speaking, I'm also not a free-trader.

That was the beauty of RP.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Aye. Most Libertarians share his view. I'm not a strict Libertarian -- I support libertarians because, these days, they're the only people truly committed to limited-government and individual freedom but I remain a paleoconservative.

Strictly speaking, I'm also not a free-trader.

Strictly speaking, you're not for limited government.

[SicEmBaylor]

Strictly speaking, you're not for limited government.
Tariffs were the means by which the Federal government raised revenue in the early days of our Republic. I'm in favor of going back to that system, eliminating the income tax, and introducing a consumption tax.

I favor free-trade agreements when it's with equitable and comparable economies to our own. Economies and nations with similar labor laws, environmental laws, regulations, etc. etc.

The problem with having free-trade agreements with places like Mexico and China is that American labor is at an inherent disadvantage that it simply cannot compete with. Therefore you have an ever widening trade gap.

Another problem is that free trade agreements are detrimental to American sovereignty that takes away our ability to impose targeted and hopefully temporary tariffs when the need arises.

[SoonerProphet]

Aye. Most Libertarians share his view. I'm not a strict Libertarian -- I support libertarians because, these days, they're the only people truly committed to limited-government and individual freedom but I remain a paleoconservative.

Strictly speaking, I'm also not a free-trader.

So are you in favor of protectionist trade policies?

[SicEmBaylor]

So are you in favor of protectionist trade policies?
I'm certainly in favor of retaining the option. I don't really like protectionism, but it's sometimes necessarily given the grossly inequitable economies of some of our trading partners.

[SoonerProphet]

I'm certainly in favor of retaining the option. I don't really like protectionism, but it's sometimes necessarily given the grossly inequitable economies of some of our trading partners.

So you might lean a bit more to the populist side of the paleo spectrum.

For you Ryan enthusiasts.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/paul-ryan-the-boy-in-the-bubble/

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I will vote for Romney in this election because he and Ryan hold out at least a glimmer of hope in controlling entitlement spending which is crushing our country and leaving my kids' futures in serious peeril. With Obama there is no chance any serious budget restraint will be instituted and I fully expect the United States to follow Europe into economic chaos by the end of the decade in that scenario.Nobody wants a better govt. than I. We must FIRST get rid of Obama and the d's, before we can do anything more to improve the govt. With Obama in charge, we know what they want and what they're doing, and that they HAVE to go.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'm certainly in favor of retaining the option. I don't really like protectionism, but it's sometimes necessarily given the grossly inequitable economies of some of our trading partners.

In other words, you want to retain the option of taxing the consumer in order to give a select group of workers a higher salary than the market dictates.

Do you think opening up trade with Cuba will hurt American workers or help them?

[SicEmBaylor]

Nobody wants a better govt. than I. We must FIRST get rid of Obama and the d's, before we can do anything more to improve the govt. With Obama in charge, we know what they want and what they're doing, and that they HAVE to go.

That same argument is trotted out year after year when it involves a Democratic incumbent (not just on the Presidential level) and a lousy *** Republican. It's a **** poor excuse to vote for someone that everyone knows won't improve a damned thing.

[SicEmBaylor]

In other words, you want to retain the option of taxing the consumer in order to give a select group of workers a higher salary than the market dictates.

Do you think opening up trade with Cuba will hurt American workers or help them?

The problem is that the idea of a free market dictating the price is an absolute illusion. Labor laws, minimum wages, regulatory laws, etc. etc. all have an impact on the price of goods. Ideally, it would be done in such a way that the tariff offset the added cost of production that American industry has when directly competing with an inequitable economy. Now, mind you, I don't like the idea of using tariffs except when they're absolutely needed and hopefully only in the short term. Tariffs also allow an industry breathing space to retool or make changes that would make them globally competitive without the need for a tariff.

By and large, I want to retain the option rather than surrender sovereignty to an international treaty.

[FaninAma]

That same argument is trotted out year after year when it involves a Democratic incumbent (not just on the Presidential level) and a lousy *** Republican. It's a **** poor excuse to vote for someone that everyone knows won't improve a damned thing.

So you are saying a Romney/Ryan administration will offer no advantages to economic conservatives compared to a 2nd Obama administration? You do realize that in a 2nd Obama term he will have all the pretenses removed for even pretending to govern from the center...don't you? If he is blocked by a GOP Congress he will simply issue tons of executive orders. I have a feeling things will get very ugly in the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected.

[Midtowner]

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q561/mikekefr/pics/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The problem is that the idea of a free market dictating the price is an absolute illusion. Labor laws, minimum wages, regulatory laws, etc. etc. all have an impact on the price of goods. Ideally, it would be done in such a way that the tariff offset the added cost of production that American industry has when directly competing with an inequitable economy. Now, mind you, I don't like the idea of using tariffs except when they're absolutely needed and hopefully only in the short term. Tariffs also allow an industry breathing space to retool or make changes that would make them globally competitive without the need for a tariff.

By and large, I want to retain the option rather than surrender sovereignty to an international treaty.

As Ron Paul points out, you don't need an international treaty to not impose tariffs.

[SoonerProphet]

So you are saying a Romney/Ryan administration will offer no advantages to economic conservatives compared to a 2nd Obama administration? You do realize that in a 2nd Obama term he will have all the pretenses removed for even pretending to govern from the center...don't you? If he is blocked by a GOP Congress he will simply issue tons of executive orders. I have a feeling things will get very ugly in the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected.

I think your delusional if you feel those two are going to change the status quo. I would simply point to the foreign policy advisors such as Bolton and Kristol that will simply repeat the strategic blunders of the last neocon nitwits.

[OU_Sooners75]

I think your delusional if you feel those two are going to change the status quo. I would simply point to the foreign policy advisors such as Bolton and Kristol that will simply repeat the strategic blunders of the last neocon nitwits.

By all means tell us how you would change it? Anything is better or at least more promising than what we currently have in place.

[FaninAma]

I think your delusional if you feel those two are going to change the status quo. I would simply point to the foreign policy advisors such as Bolton and Kristol that will simply repeat the strategic blunders of the last neocon nitwits.

Again, I don't disagree. I think the neocons are nitwits. What I am hoping for is that one side has some principles left and will recognize that their sacred cows will have to undergo budget cuts along with everybody else. Right now I hold out more hope that the GOP candidates will be willing to do this than would the current occupant of the White House. Yes, I wish I had a better choice but I don't. Throwing my vote away on Gary Johnson is not a viable option.

I am also hoping that the severity of the economic situation here and in Europe will prevent the Republicans form continuing their military expansion overseas. I do not think they will be able to avoid cutting the military budget while cutting entitlements. It would be political suicide and would lead to their defeat in 2016.

I do know that Obama is not Bill Clinton. Obama will never agree to significant cuts in entitlement programs....never. Right now I think Romney's background of working with the opposition in Massachussets holds more promise than the cooperation with the opposition that we have seen from Obama.

To tell you the truth, if Bill Clinton was running again I would vote for him in a heartbeat as long as it looked like there would be a Republican Congress.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In other words, you want to retain the option of taxing the consumer in order to give a select group of workers a higher salary than the market dictates.

You might want to 'splain how what you said here works.

However, I don't like a consumption tax, either, since it discourages production and consumption.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That same argument is trotted out year after year when it involves a Democratic incumbent (not just on the Presidential level) and a lousy *** Republican. It's a **** poor excuse to vote for someone that everyone knows won't improve a damned thing.You're wrong, of course. Orange Juice Can/Obama

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So you are saying a Romney/Ryan administration will offer no advantages to economic conservatives compared to a 2nd Obama administration? You do realize that in a 2nd Obama term he will have all the pretenses removed for even pretending to govern from the center...don't you? If he is blocked by a GOP Congress he will simply issue tons of executive orders. I have a feeling things will get very ugly in the next 4 years if Obama is re-elected.For some mysterious reason, this isn't totally obvious to some folks.

[SicEmBaylor]

You might want to 'splain how what you said here works.

However, I don't like a consumption tax, either, since it discourages production and consumption.
It encourages savings and discourages borrowing is what it does. It's also inherently more fair to tax someone for what they consume rather than what they produce.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hey, Sicem, quick, move to Iowa, Johnson got on the ballot here....

Won't do. It's a yankee state.

[SoonerProphet]

Again, I don't disagree. I think the neocons are nitwits. What I am hoping for is that one side has some principles left and will recognize that their sacred cows will have to undergo budget cuts along with everybody else. Right now I hold out more hope that the GOP candidates will be willing to do this than would the current occupant of the White House. Yes, I wish I had a better choice but I don't. Throwing my vote away on Gary Johnson is not a viable option.

It is hard for me to reconcile the concept of principle with that of throwing my vote away. I don't buy that argument. Either you have them or you don't and it has been proven that neither of the two parties are interested in serious budget debate, revaluating monetary policy, challenging the central bankers, nor restrain the desire to go in search of monsters to destroy.


I am also hoping that the severity of the economic situation here and in Europe will prevent the Republicans form continuing their military expansion overseas. I do not think they will be able to avoid cutting the military budget while cutting entitlements. It would be political suicide and would lead to their defeat in 2016.

You seriously think that with the team of advisors the GOP ticket has lined up in regards to foreign policy is interested in that. Look at their record and current rhetoric. It means more clueless interventions, more botched diplomacy, and more waste.

[marfacowboy]

liars, militarists and self-absorbed bastards, all...I'm voting for Jill Stein.

[LiveLaughLove]

You all vote for who you want. It's becoming very apparent this is starting to turn in to an OU-Iowa State game. A blow out.

The magic is gone from the once thought messiah. He has been as colossal a failure as Jimmah in the '70s.

He's about to get the same fate.

[diverdog]

Geithner and Paulson have done that level of damage because it's with the blessing and under the direction of Obama. I don't think the results would be much different under Obama regardless of who you plugged into those positions. The same is true of Romney unless Romney gave Ron Paul and Paul Ryan carte blanche with economic policy but that isn't Romney's style. And, in any case, Ron Paul would never accepted even if it was offered.

Tell me again what position Paulson has in the Obama Cabinet?

[AlboSooner]

If Ron Paul was elected President this November, I'd give OP 24 hours to move on to the next improbable candidate, so OP can still be in that special minority of intellectuals who "just get it."

[SCOUT]

I have nothing to really add to this thread. However, I would like to make two quick points.
1) I am glad that FaninAma is posting here again.
2) Love him or hate him, you have to respect SicEm for having a principled opinion and sticking to it.

Please continue...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It encourages savings and discourages borrowing is what it does. It's also inherently more fair to tax someone for what they consume rather than what they produce.Consumption tax can discourage people from buy some things that aren't essential, thereby discouraging economic activity.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You all vote for who you want. It's becoming very apparent this is starting to turn in to an OU-Iowa State game. A blow out.

The magic is gone from the once thought messiah. He has been as colossal a failure as Jimmah in the '70s.

He's about to get the same fate.His departure will rock the country, and in a very positive way.

[Blue]

I'm all for Ron Paul and his convictions. That said, many of those delegates were obtained by sticking around caucuses longer than anyone else and basically converting votes. Is that right? Obama did the same crap in 08'. In every state where there was an actaul vote Clinton creamed him. Same w/ Paul and Romney. The difference is Obama was the chosen one.

Paul was not gonna be the nominee. The RNC tactics were dispicable and completely against the rules, but the Paul tactics were almost equally as bad.

That being said, I will not vote this election. The whole process is FUBAR. The curtain has been drawn back and the emperor has no clothes IMO.

[diverdog]

I'm all for Ron Paul and his convictions. That said, many of those delegates were obtained by sticking around caucuses longer than anyone else and basically converting votes. Is that right? Obama did the same crap in 08'. In every state where there was an actaul vote Clinton creamed him. Same w/ Paul and Romney. The difference is Obama was the chosen one.

Paul was not gonna be the nominee. The RNC tactics were dispicable and completely against the rules, but the Paul tactics were almost equally as bad.

That being said, I will not vote this election. The whole process is FUBAR. The curtain has been drawn back and the emperor has no clothes IMO.

Good post.

BTW mom and dad almost retired in your neck of the woods on Lake Martin.

[SicEmBaylor]

Tell me again what position Paulson has in the Obama Cabinet?
My mistake. I should have worded that better -- I was trying to say that TresSec's are only implementing the President's policy (whether it be Bush, Obama, etc.).


If Ron Paul was elected President this November, I'd give OP 24 hours to move on to the next improbable candidate, so OP can still be in that special minority of intellectuals who "just get it."
If he was elected President would he still be improbable? If Paul were elected President then I'd probably move on to supporting Congressional candidates that can support his agenda in Congress. If Paul stayed true to his principles (and I have every reason to believe that he would) then I'd have no reason to turn against him.

The fact is, I didn't turn against mainstream Republicans until 2007/2008. To that point, I would support the 'establishment' guy to the man. I was as big a Bush guy as you'd ever find. Ron Paul is the least mainstream Republican I've ever supported except perhaps Brogdon here in Oklahoma.


I have nothing to really add to this thread. However, I would like to make two quick points.
1) I am glad that FaninAma is posting here again.
I'd like to second this. I greatly appreciate Fanin's contributions and enjoy his posts a great deal.
2) Love him or hate him, you have to respect SicEm for having a principled opinion and sticking to it.[/quote]
Who on Earth wouldn't love me? ;)



Consumption tax can discourage people from buy some things that aren't essential, thereby discouraging economic activity.
It discourages people from living outside their means and accumulating debt in the name of consumerism. This same belief and mentality is what has led to the policies that most Republicans claim to oppose.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It encourages savings and discourages borrowing is what it does. It's also inherently more fair to tax someone for what they consume rather than what they produce.

Sly move sic em, the choice is not between consumer tax and income tax, it's a choice between taxing the consumer vs. not taxing the consumer. When tariffs are implemented, gov't doesn't lower income taxes.

And I might point out that 50% of imported products are capital goods used by industry. Tariffs hurt American businesses in the aggregate to benefit particular industries.

The marketplace should decide what's fair, not soviet politburo-style gov't bureaucrats. Should New Yorkers be able to have a tariff on Mississippi products since the overhead costs of production are less in Mississippi? "It's not fair!!"" Wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Honestly sic em, some of you ideas sound more like the ones that come from union liberals than they do Adam Smith.

[SoonerBBall]

Consumption tax can discourage people from buy some things that aren't essential, thereby discouraging economic activity.

Seriously? Your argument against a federal consumption tax replacing all other federal taxes (including the income tax) is that people won't spend money they don't have on sh*t they don't need?

The US is the most consumption driven nation in history. Allowing people to take all of their money home would give them all the more reason to spend that money to fuel their buying habits.

[soonercruiser]

I didn't see any Ron Paul supporters!
Wonder why?
:pirate:


http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/ronpauldelegates.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

This is a county-by-county breakdown of the 2012 Republican Primary:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by _county,_2012.png

Ron Paul (represented here by the color yellow) received about 2.1 million votes nationwide. Looking at this map, one can see that four of the states Ron Paul performed best in are swing states. Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, and even including Maine which splits its electoral votes (meaning at least one EV often goes Republican) all had large totals for Ron Paul.

Keeping in mind that the difference in the popular vote in these swing states between the two candidates is likely to be razor thin, it becomes even more astounding that the RNC and Romney campaign would be as hostile to Paul supporters as they've been.

It's going to be very interesting to see on election night if Romney cost himself the election because of his conduct at the RNC.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seriously? Your argument against a federal consumption tax replacing all other federal taxes (including the income tax) is that people won't spend money they don't have on sh*t they don't need?

The US is the most consumption driven nation in history. Allowing people to take all of their money home would give them all the more reason to spend that money to fuel their buying habits.My argument is that people won't buy some items that have a federal tax, that they would want, but became too costly as as result of the federal tax. Enough poeple making that decision hurts the govt. revenue, hurts the manufacturer or service provider, and hurts the industry. I prefer a low income tax. The consumption tax is more govt. micro-managing, and it sucks. You know that, but apparently like it. I can't help you there.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Romney has apparently taken the advice to tread lightly on Obama for fear of being called racist, greedy, environmentally uncaring etc.,again and again, and is hoping people are going to focus on Obama's disastrous economic policies, and make the election about Obama, as it should be. Please remember that is is imperative to vote for Romney, or you are helping to re-elect Obama. Once Obama is out of office, let's do all we can to improve the repubs, and get more good ones in there. This is not complicated, folks, and rules of mathematics are in charge of everything.

[SicEmBaylor]

My argument is that people won't buy some items that have a federal tax, that they would want, but became too costly as as result of the federal tax. Enough poeple making that decision hurts the govt. revenue, hurts the manufacturer or service provider, and hurts the industry. I prefer a low income tax. The consumption tax is more govt. micro-managing, and it sucks. You know that, but apparently like it. I can't help you there.

You have to be kidding if you think a graduated income tax (even a low one) is preferable and an example of less "government micro-managing" than a flat federal sales tax. Yes, items may be slightly more expensive with an increased sales tax but it would be more than offset by the savings from not paying any sort of income taxes. Not to mention the sorts of rebates that, for example, Boortz proposes.

[SicEmBaylor]

Once Obama is out of office, let's do all we can to improve the repubs, and get more good ones in there. This is not complicated, folks, and rules of mathematics are in charge of everything.

This has never ever worked. This will never ever work. Trying to change them after they win does not work. Winning validates what they do and how they do it which means they'll continue to do the exact same things until they lose and they have to re-evaluate their tactics.

Do you think the Tea Party would be as successful as it is today if the Republican Party had continued to be successful with the same big-government tactics of the Bush Administration? If the GOP hadn't lost Congress and lost the Presidency, do you think we'd hear as much talk about reducing the size of government today? No. No we would not.

The ONLY thing that gets a politician or party's attention is losing. If Romney loses this election because of his rejection of the liberty movement then you can bet your sweet *** that the GOP will pay more attention to the liberty movement in the next cycle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This has never ever worked. This will never ever work. Trying to change them after they win does not work. Winning validates what they do and how they do it which means they'll continue to do the exact same things until they lose and they have to re-evaluate their tactics.

Do you think the Tea Party would be as successful as it is today if the Republican Party had continued to be successful with the same big-government tactics of the Bush Administration? If the GOP hadn't lost Congress and lost the Presidency, do you think we'd hear as much talk about reducing the size of government today? No. No we would not.

The ONLY thing that gets a politician or party's attention is losing. If Romney loses this election because of his rejection of the liberty movement then you can bet your sweet *** that the GOP will pay more attention to the liberty movement in the next cycle.You have to make the changes at primary elections. As we all painfully know, the democrats have almost 0 candidates that do anything correctly, and voting 3rd party always gets democrats elected. So, the ONLY HOPE WE HAVE for improvement is to change out RINOS in the primaries.

You admitted herein that voting 3rd party or not voting gets democrats elected. So, DON'T DO IT. iT'S STUPID.

[diverdog]

You have to make the changes at primary elections. As we all painfully know, the democrats have almost 0 candidates that do anything correctly, and voting 3rd party always gets democrats elected. So, the ONLY HOPE WE HAVE for improvement is to change out RINOS in the primaries.

You admitted herein that voting 3rd party or not voting gets democrats elected. So, DON'T DO IT. iT'S STUPID.

You are a hoot.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You are a hoot.YOU go ahead and vote for Obama(you're going to anyway)

[diverdog]

YOU go ahead and vote for Obama(you're going to anyway)

I am thinking Gary Johnson.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A vote for Obama, a non vote, or a 3rd party vote are all votes for national suicide, as you are asking that Obama be returned to complete the job of destruction of the best country that the earth has ever seen. If you don't understand that by now, perhaps you never will.

[diverdog]

A vote for Obama, a non vote, or a 3rd party vote are all votes for national suicide, as you are asking that Obama be returned to complete the job of destruction of the best country that the earth has ever seen. If you don't understand that by now, perhaps you never will.

Your hyperbole is over the top! "National suicide"? "Destruction of the best country on earth"? You need to turn off that radio and chill out. Holy smokes can you even breath? Our country has faced civil war, two world wars and a number of really bad depressions and recessions. We will be fine no matter who is elected. Obama was handed a mess and we are still standing as a nation and things are getting better. Not fast enough but they are getting better.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your hyperbole is over the top! "National suicide"? "Destruction of the best country on earth"? You need to turn off that radio and chill out. Holy smokes can you even breath? Our country has faced civil war, two world wars and a number of really bad depressions and recessions. We will be fine no matter who is elected. Obama was handed a mess and we are still standing as a nation and things are getting better. Not fast enough but they are getting better.We don't have to vote for destruction of our foundation. The govt. has already taken control of part of the economy, and Obama just ignores our laws. you know that, or should. Obamacare is a seizure of roughly 1/6 of our economy, and has to be repealed.

If you think we are getting better, you are part of the problem. I understand that there are some folks like you. We just have to hope you see the light in time to vote smart.

[diverdog]

We don't have to vote for destruction of our foundation. The govt. has already taken control of part of the economy, and Obama just ignores our laws. you know that, or should. Obamacare is a seizure of roughly 1/6 of our economy, and has to be repealed.

If you think we are getting better, you are part of the problem. I understand that there are some folks like you. We just have to hope you see the light in time to vote smart.

Vote smart? You mean like the last guy who got us in to two wars and had the first trillion dollar deficit?

Yes things are better. There is job growth albiet weak. The stock market is back up and the housing market is starting to show signs of life. Our financial sector is stable. For all practical purposes the war in Iraq is over and Bin Laden is dead. Is it good enough. No. But I do not think it would be any better under McCain.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Vote smart? You mean like the last guy who got us in to two wars and had the first trillion dollar deficit?

Yes things are better. There is job growth albiet weak. The stock market is back up and the housing market is starting to show signs of life. Our financial sector is stable. For all practical purposes the war in Iraq is over and Bin Laden is dead. Is it good enough. No. But I do not think it would be any better under McCain.Fine, if you believe Obama is doing a good job, and things are fine and going in the right direction, doubtful anyone here can help you.

[rock on sooner]

Your hyperbole is over the top! "National suicide"? "Destruction of the best country on earth"? You need to turn off that radio and chill out. Holy smokes can you even breath? Our country has faced civil war, two world wars and a number of really bad depressions and recessions. We will be fine no matter who is elected. Obama was handed a mess and we are still standing as a nation and things are getting better. Not fast enough but they are getting better.

Yup, W took a surplus and balanced budget and turned it into a big deficit by
starting two wars, without funding, installed big tax cuts (hmmm, more spending,
less revenue) and put in place the unpaid for drug plan. It took him eight long
years to accomplish this. Left his successor with this mess and his party's expectation
that it should be fixed in a year and a half or so. Since that didn't happen, then they
decided with the 2010 "historical" or was it "hysterical" election that they would do their
level best that he couldn't fix it in the next two, thereby getting somone in office who
will, at a breakneck pace, return us to what caused the mess in the first place.:angel:

[rock on sooner]

Fine, if you believe Obama is doing a good job, and things are fine and going in the right direction, doubtful anyone here can help you.

Reasonably certain that a few of us here don't want your "help".:biggrin:

[sappstuf]

Yup, W took a surplus and balanced budget and turned it into a big deficit by
starting two wars, without funding, installed big tax cuts (hmmm, more spending,
less revenue) and put in place the unpaid for drug plan. It took him eight long
years to accomplish this. Left his successor with this mess and his party's expectation
that it should be fixed in a year and a half or so. Since that didn't happen, then they
decided with the 2010 "historical" or was it "hysterical" election that they would do their
level best that he couldn't fix it in the next two, thereby getting somone in office who
will, at a breakneck pace, return us to what caused the mess in the first place.:angel:

Those were all passed or started before 2003.. In another words, 2 years.

I could never understand the Dem argument of starting the wars "without funding". I am 100% sure that Congress passed supplemental spending bills that Bush then signed into law.

I then remember Pelosi saying she wouldn't cut funding in 2006...
Let me remove all doubt in anyone’s mind; as long as our troops are in harm’s way, Democrats will be there to support them, but… we will have oversight over that funding

So there was funding... And the Dems were signing off on it all along.

[rock on sooner]

Those were all passed or started before 2003.. In another words, 2 years.

I could never understand the Dem argument of starting the wars "without funding". I am 100% sure that Congress passed supplemental spending bills that Bush then signed into law.

I then remember Pelosi saying she wouldn't cut funding in 2006...

So there was funding... And the Dems were signing off on it all along.

W was a faster screwup than I remembered...:biggrin:

[sappstuf]

W was a faster screwup than I remembered...:biggrin:

Oh it was faster than that. The Dotcom bubble popped in early March of 2000, not even 45 days after Bush took office. Billions of venture capital was lost, big companies started disappearing overnight, people making 6 figures suddenly couldn't find a job....

Now anyone with a brain wouldn't blame Bush for a bubble that popped, before he had barely moved his furniture into the White House, dropping federal revenue like a rock turning a surplus into a deficit into 2001... (Clinton's (surplus) didn't include interest payments on our debt and our debt continued to grow during his best year), which was then hit by 9/11 double whammy to the economy. You could chalk it up to natural forces of the market or even the Federal Reserve under Clinton which raised interest rates 6 times in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to slow down the economy.. They were certainly successful at that.

Nope.. Much easier to not worry about the facts, and just go with this.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Bush_Fault.gif

[rock on sooner]

Oh it was faster than that. The Dotcom bubble popped in early March of 2000, not even 45 days after Bush took office. Billions of venture capital was lost, big companies started disappearing overnight, people making 6 figures suddenly couldn't find a job....

Now anyone with a brain wouldn't blame Bush for a bubble that popped, before he had barely moved his furniture into the White House, dropping federal revenue like a rock turning a surplus into a deficit into 2001... (Clinton's (surplus) didn't include interest payments on our debt and our debt continued to grow during his best year), which was then hit by 9/11 double whammy to the economy. You could chalk it up to natural forces of the market or even the Federal Reserve under Clinton which raised interest rates 6 times in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to slow down the economy.. They were certainly successful at that.

Nope.. Much easier to not worry about the facts, and just go with this.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Bush_Fault.gif

Okay, it wasn't Bush's fault in '00. How does it square that at a time the
country was bleeding 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month at the end of his
second term and into Obama's first two-three months, that you guys say
that Obama's done nothing, he failed, the economy is more screwed up than
before he took office? He stopped the bleeding and reversed the job loss
patterns, slowly, but he has done it. He's cut unemployment nearly 19%
(10.2% to 8.3%) He saved 1.5 to 2.0 million jobs and countless small businesses
with the auto bailout, he's helped hundreds of thousands of seniors with the
doughnut hole, covered preventive care procedures, protected thousands of
twentysomethings by keeping them on their parents' insurance, enabled many
to be able to get insurance in spite of preexisting conditions and, even kept
the bankers' feet to the fire. You guys all say that he's failed or done nothing.
Doesn't look that way, IMO.

[rock on sooner]

I'm still waiting....haven't heard any spin or anything....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Reasonably certain that a few of us here don't want your "help".:biggrin:I am too. you'r apparently satisfied with what you've wrought. Some folks are masochistic, and seem to think it's a positive thing.

[SoonerorLater]

Oh it was faster than that. The Dotcom bubble popped in early March of 2000, not even 45 days after Bush took office. Billions of venture capital was lost, big companies started disappearing overnight, people making 6 figures suddenly couldn't find a job....

Now anyone with a brain wouldn't blame Bush for a bubble that popped, before he had barely moved his furniture into the White House, dropping federal revenue like a rock turning a surplus into a deficit into 2001... (Clinton's (surplus) didn't include interest payments on our debt and our debt continued to grow during his best year), which was then hit by 9/11 double whammy to the economy. You could chalk it up to natural forces of the market or even the Federal Reserve under Clinton which raised interest rates 6 times in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to slow down the economy.. They were certainly successful at that.

Nope.. Much easier to not worry about the facts, and just go with this.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Bush_Fault.gif

The election was in November 2000, Bush wasn't sworn in until Jan 2001. This is what all of the Clinton Disciples never mention. The Nasdaq dropped from over 5000 to below 2500 from March 2000 until before Bush took office. This isn't to say Bush was much of a president but to say Clinton didn't have much to do with the supposed economic success of the country. He was just the White House recipient of the heretofore biggest financial bubble ever blown.

[rock on sooner]

The election was in November 2000, Bush wasn't sworn in until Jan 2001. This is what all of the Clinton Disciples never mention. The Nasdaq dropped from over 5000 to below 2500 from March 2000 until before Bush took office. This isn't to say Bush was much of a president but to say Clinton didn't have much to do with the supposed economic success of the country. He was just the White House recipient of the heretofore biggest financial bubble ever blown.

Every prez affects his successor and it takes time for the hangover to go away
but, any way you shake the "bush" W f***** it up, big time. Cheney, Rove, Rummy,
et al made a gigantic mess of what they had to work with!

[rock on sooner]

I am too. you'r apparently satisfied with what you've wrought. Some folks are masochistic, and seem to think it's a positive thing.

Welp, RLIMC, don't think you know positive from negative, 'cause what's
come about from Obama's efforts beat the hell out of the crap that R/R
are advocating, since it is the SAME stuff that Reagan, H W, W have all
pushed.

[sappstuf]

Okay, it wasn't Bush's fault in '00. How does it square that at a time the
country was bleeding 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month at the end of his
second term and into Obama's first two-three months, that you guys say
that Obama's done nothing, he failed, the economy is more screwed up than
before he took office? He stopped the bleeding and reversed the job loss
patterns, slowly, but he has done it. He's cut unemployment nearly 19%
(10.2% to 8.3%) He saved 1.5 to 2.0 million jobs and countless small businesses
with the auto bailout, he's helped hundreds of thousands of seniors with the
doughnut hole, covered preventive care procedures, protected thousands of
twentysomethings by keeping them on their parents' insurance, enabled many
to be able to get insurance in spite of preexisting conditions and, even kept
the bankers' feet to the fire. You guys all say that he's failed or done nothing.
Doesn't look that way, IMO.

That is some mighty fine Koolaid you are drinking...

The recession ended just a couple of months after Obama took office and before the Stimulus could have any effect. In another words, Bush stabilized the economy with TARP on the way out of the door, but you can blame the recession on Bush if you wish... Just blame the recovery from the recession on Obama. He promised unemployment would be around 6.2% if we spent a trillion dollars on his Stimulus.. Instead it is 2 points higher after 3.5 years.

http://startthinkingright.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/unemployment-with-without-stimulus_may-2012.png

When confronted with Obama's own failed promises, many on the left will claim that he didn't know how bad it was when he passed the stimulus. In another words, he is incompetent and spent a trillion dollars before he knew what the problem was... Feel free to use that defense, but it never made much sense to me.

Now to the unemployment rate. It has dropped from 10.2% to 8.3% under Obama.. But not in the good way. I'll let CNN explain..


There are far more jobless people in the United States than you might think. While it's true that the unemployment rate is falling, that doesn't include the millions of nonworking adults who aren't even looking for a job anymore. And hiring isn't strong enough to keep up with population growth.

As a result, the labor force is now at its smallest size since the 1980s when compared to the broader working age population.

Not good news after 4 years of Obama.

[rock on sooner]

A simple fact that is overlooked by most is that ALL industries learned
to drive their staffs harder to produce the same with fewer people because,
otherwise, we'll get someone who can. This I know because before I retired,
that was the push in EVERY business at every level there was. Since this
wonderful "productivity" existed let's just take the profits and pay the investors
and ourselves and "wait and see" what the gov't does. Only now, is hiring
getting even close to what is needed to lower employment. Oh, & I worked
for the second leading retailer in the country.

Sapp, ya oughta check your flavor of Kool-aid..hope it aint grape, that masked
poison really well, so I'm told:biggrin:

[SCOUT]

A simple fact that is overlooked by most is that ALL industries learned
to drive their staffs harder to produce the same with fewer people because,
otherwise, we'll get someone who can. This I know because before I retired,
that was the push in EVERY business at every level there was. Since this
wonderful "productivity" existed let's just take the profits and pay the investors
and ourselves and "wait and see" what the gov't does. Only now, is hiring
getting even close to what is needed to lower employment. Oh, & I worked
for the second leading retailer in the country.

Sapp, ya oughta check your flavor of Kool-aid..hope it aint grape, that masked
poison really well, so I'm told:biggrin:

Your previous job was as an omnipotent management consultant? Wow.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your previous job was as an omnipotent management consultant? Wow.Dude fancies hissef one smart cookie...

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh it was faster than that. The Dotcom bubble popped in early March of 2000, not even 45 days after Bush took office. Billions of venture capital was lost, big companies started disappearing overnight, people making 6 figures suddenly couldn't find a job....

Now anyone with a brain wouldn't blame Bush for a bubble that popped, before he had barely moved his furniture into the White House, dropping federal revenue like a rock turning a surplus into a deficit into 2001... (Clinton's (surplus) didn't include interest payments on our debt and our debt continued to grow during his best year), which was then hit by 9/11 double whammy to the economy. You could chalk it up to natural forces of the market or even the Federal Reserve under Clinton which raised interest rates 6 times in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to slow down the economy.. They were certainly successful at that.

Nope.. Much easier to not worry about the facts, and just go with this.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Bush_Fault.gif
There's nothing anyone could or should have done about the dotcom bubble. That bubble needed to pop. There were hundreds of companies out there with absolutely no market that were vastly over valued.

The dotcom bubble was a much needed market correction.

[SicEmBaylor]

Every prez affects his successor and it takes time for the hangover to go away
but, any way you shake the "bush" W f***** it up, big time. Cheney, Rove, Rummy,
et al made a gigantic mess of what they had to work with!

This is all true. The problem is that rather than go in a "new direction" as Obama promised, Obama has simply double-downed on Bush era policies. He's done it in his own slightly different way to be sure, but Obama's policies are not fundamentally different than Bush's (in either foreign or domesitc policies)

Obama did face a terrible situation when he took office, but he exacerbated the problem rather than alleviate it. He deserves a lot of blame for that. It's amazing to me that people take Obama seriously when he accuses R/R of wanting to return to the "failed policies of the Bush administration." So far, what R/R proposed is anything but Bush era policies -- R/R seem determined to reduce government spending.

[cleller]

On Feb 23, 2009 Obama addressed the spending/deficit problem:

"We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end," he said. "Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office."

So stop worrying.

[rock on sooner]

Your previous job was as an omnipotent management consultant? Wow.

Nope, not omnipotent or consultant, just management.

[okie52]

Oh it was faster than that. The Dotcom bubble popped in early March of 2000, not even 45 days after Bush took office. Billions of venture capital was lost, big companies started disappearing overnight, people making 6 figures suddenly couldn't find a job....

Now anyone with a brain wouldn't blame Bush for a bubble that popped, before he had barely moved his furniture into the White House, dropping federal revenue like a rock turning a surplus into a deficit into 2001... (Clinton's (surplus) didn't include interest payments on our debt and our debt continued to grow during his best year), which was then hit by 9/11 double whammy to the economy. You could chalk it up to natural forces of the market or even the Federal Reserve under Clinton which raised interest rates 6 times in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to slow down the economy.. They were certainly successful at that.

Nope.. Much easier to not worry about the facts, and just go with this.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Bush_Fault.gif

Sapp-W didn't take office until January 20th,2001. Dotcom was all on clinton.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sapp-W didn't take office until January 20th,2001. Dotcom was all on clinton.
The dotcom bust was not Clinton's fault. That was a market correction -- pure and simple. In fact, if he'd tried to stop it, the problem would have been much much worse.

[okie52]

The dotcom bust was not Clinton's fault. That was a market correction -- pure and simple. In fact, if he'd tried to stop it, the problem would have been much much worse.

The dotcom bust happened during Clinton's watch....if Clinton is going to get the credit for the economy during his term he also gets the failures. I don't think he had much to do with either but you won't convince many dems of that point.

[SicEmBaylor]

The dotcom bust happened during Clinton's watch....if Clinton is going to get the credit for the economy during his term he also gets the failures. I don't think he had much to do with either but you won't convince many dems of that point.
This is nonsense. Clinton had quite a bit to do with the economy. Generally speaking, Clinton stayed the hell out of the way of business. I don't like NAFTA, but he was aggressive in pursuing economic growth. Clinton did a lot to close the deficit, enacted entitlement reforms, and generally allowed the market to do its own work. By allowing the market to adjust itself, Clinton did a hell of a lot.

The act of not acting is, in and of itself, an act.

[sappstuf]

Sapp-W didn't take office until January 20th,2001. Dotcom was all on clinton.

That's what I get for drinking and posting.. :)

[TitoMorelli]

The act of not acting is, in and of itself, an act.

Keanu Reeves quote?

[rock on sooner]

That's what I get for drinking and posting.. :)

That's why I aint arguein right now..too many :drunk:

[MR2-Sooner86]

Prediction 1: If Romney wins, in four years we will have a higher national debt, and still have a drug war, a police state, troops in 150 countries, and a national security/warfare state.
Prediction 2: If Obama wins, in four years we will have a higher national debt, and still have a drug war, a police state, troops in 150 countries, and a national security/warfare state.

I have but one goal, to shrink and dismantle as much of the Government, all Government, as possible. Ron Paul had this same goal and that is why I strongly supported him. Romney won't do it. Obama won't do it. Gary Johnson is the only other place I can go.

“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement...I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the tea party movement to sort of refashion conservatism, and I will vocally and publicly oppose it...One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.” - Rick Santorum

This vaginal gas bag spoke at the GOP convention and is loved by many GOP talking heads. I'd rather be Libertarian than a big government GOPer anytime.

Let's not forget Reagan himself said the heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism. Let's also not forget free market capitalism, limited government, individual choices, and freedom are all Libertarian ideas spouted by the GOP during campaigns, but quickly dropped when they get into office.

In America we want low taxes, a ton of free ****, and a balanced budget with no debt. Everybody wants things cut except what they want be it SS, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, green energy, farm subsidies, EPA, Section 8, food stamps, defense contracts, whatever. If I were a politician I'd promise a pony in every garage. It's all going on the company credit card so why not? That's what the voters want. Every line in the budget has a fan.

I am disillusioned and disenfranchised that our government will only grow, never shrink.

The GOP votes over 30 times to repeal Obamacare in the House, only to know it'll die in the Senate or get overturned by the President.

Yet when given a chance to actually defund Obamacare, they don't do a thing. (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/betrayal-house-gop-leaders-refuse-to-defund-obamacare/)

So much for the Tea Party going to "clean up Washington." What else do you expect from a movement that wants no SS reform as its mostly Baby Boomers who are afraid Obama's going to eat all the pie before they can get a slice.

We had a shot, yet the lying, hypocritical ****s in the GOP blew it. Congratulations, you have a Republican John Kerry who picked a guy who voted 94% of the time with George W. Bush as his running mate.

I'll admit, I know where Obama voters are. They admit they want more government. At least they're honest.

You want more government, your government, but disguise it with "free markets" and "personal liberty" talk.

Tell me I'm being a pessimist. Tell me I'm wrong and why. Tell me I shouldn't be depressed. Right now I should feel excited about my country and our future since we have a chance to exercise our vote in two months. But instead I believe that the vast, vast majority Americans are too stupid, lazy, and uninvolved to understand any of what I just wrote. They just want to "get theirs." I believe our best days our gone, we're going down the drain, will never come back, and this crips and bloods mentality to sell out to "one up" the other side helped do it.

Yet I'm getting this fairy dust blown up my *** that if Romney wins, with a GOP Congress, we'll have gold raining from the sky with chocolate bunnies running around and all will be good again.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Both sides got us to this point. Both sides will put the final nail in the coffin. Both sides will refuse to try and fix it.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Oh yeah, as for the "third party is a vote for Obama" BS, allow me to educate you because it appears history and facts aren't your forte.

Pero needed 5% in the polls to get into the Presidential debates. He was sitting at around 6% when the first debates happened. The media and public opinion saw him winning those debates, bringing something new to the table, and shaking up the two party system.

In case you forgot, Pero was ahead of both Clinton and Bush and he was ahead of them by strong numbers.

In a three-way match-up nationally, in early June 1992, Perot led with 39%, Bush was second with 31%, while Bill Clinton trailed with 25%, according to Gallup. Perot exited the race during the Democratic convention in mid-July. In the immediate aftermath of the convention, Gallup had Clinton leading Bush 56% to 34%, clearly a post-convention bounce. But a month later, Clinton still led -- by between 17 and 25 points -- in half a dozen national media polls, with President Bush not exceeding 37% of the vote in any of them. In mid-September, with Perot still out of the race, an ABC News/Washington Post poll gave Clinton a commanding 58%, with the incumbent still stuck at a very familiar 37%.

Then, on October 1st, Perot re-entered the race. An October 8-11 poll -- done by the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press, directed by the outstanding Andrew Kohut -- found that Clinton had dropped to 48%, with Bush at 35%, and Perot at 8% (in mid-September, they had found Clinton leading Bush 53%-38%). An October 20-22 follow-up poll of the same 1,153 voters surveyed earlier in the month found that Clinton had slipped to 44%, while Bush held at 34%, and Perot had jumped to 19%. The very first sentence of the extensive press release, dated October 26, 1992, noted that, “Ross Perot's surge in the polls is drawing somewhat more support from Bill Clinton than from George Bush, and the third party candidate seems poised to make more gains that might further narrow Bill Clinton's nationwide margin.” That press release came out the same morning that Perot’s bizarre charges that Republicans had conspired to ruin his daughter’s wedding floated into the general political consciousness, and that was the end of the Perot surge. Nonetheless, he still drew 19% on Election Day, to Clinton’s 43% and Bush’s 37.5%. (http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm)

If Pero didn't do the following, he might win:
- micromanage everything about his campaign causing his campaign director to quit
- require loyalty oaths of everybody on his campaign, among other things
- suspend his campaign
- reopen his campaign
- make up wild accusations on why he suspended his campaign

Could he have won? We'll never know but Pero shot himself in the foot and damaged his own campaign more than "being an outside third party candidate" did. He also took more from Clinton than Democrats are probably comfortable admitting.

As for the Republicans, George Bush was a ****ty candidate. Pero didn't hurt your chances, having Bush as your candidate hurt your chances.

Isn't it funny, after that happened, the Democrats and Republicans banned Pero from the '96 debates, even though he had the poll numbers to be allowed there. Isn't it also funny that after '96, they bumped the requirements for third party candidates to get into the debates from 5% in the national polls to 15% by a committee made up of *gasp* former DNC and RNC chairs. Gee I wonder why that is?

The game is rigged folks.

[soonercruiser]

This is nonsense. Clinton had quite a bit to do with the economy. Generally speaking, Clinton stayed the hell out of the way of business. I don't like NAFTA, but he was aggressive in pursuing economic growth. Clinton did a lot to close the deficit, enacted entitlement reforms, and generally allowed the market to do its own work. By allowing the market to adjust itself, Clinton did a hell of a lot.

The act of not acting is, in and of itself, an act.

Ok then SicEm!
If you are "fair", you don't give Clinton credit for the legislation that the Reugs pushed him into signing after several trys...like welfare reform.
"Kicking and screaming' was he, pulled into sgning some of the Republican sponsored legislation.
"Worried was he, about his non-Monica legacy!

And, of course, the Dot.com run for years, and the intranet run was not a result of anything that Clinton's did!

[SicEmBaylor]

Ok then SicEm!
If you are "fair", you don't give Clinton credit for the legislation that the Reugs pushed him into signing after several trys...like welfare reform.
"Kicking and screaming' was he, pulled into sgning some of the Republican sponsored legislation.
"Worried was he, about his non-Monica legacy!

And, of course, the Dot.com run for years, and the intranet run was not a result of anything that Clinton's did!
Sure Clinton was pulled into signing entitlement reform "kicking and screaming." Nonetheless, he did it. More to the point, he did it "kicking and screaming" whereas W. Bush gleefully expanded entitlements to a level not seen since the Great Society. So, I'll take Clinton "kicking and screaming" to smaller government over Bush's "compassionate conservative" big-government expansions every single day of the week.

The explosion of the internet/tech sector is more a result of the Reagan/Bush economies. Unlike our current president, however, Clinton didn't get in the way and he didn't exacerbate the problem by trying to "bail" the tech sector out of its jam. The dotcom bubble was a great example of the market correcting itself and it did so unhindered by the government. A lesson that should have been learned by W. Bush and Obama.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Only 2 people have a mathematical chance of winning the presidential election in '12. Romney and Obeary. If Romney does even some of the things he says he will do, it's a VAST improvement over the socialist currently in charge. We all know that.
Orange Juice Can/ Obama. it's very simple. If you don't vote for Romney, you are fostering Obama and His band of outlaws and America haters.

[okie52]

Sure Clinton was pulled into signing entitlement reform "kicking and screaming." Nonetheless, he did it. More to the point, he did it "kicking and screaming" whereas W. Bush gleefully expanded entitlements to a level not seen since the Great Society. So, I'll take Clinton "kicking and screaming" to smaller government over Bush's "compassionate conservative" big-government expansions every single day of the week.

The explosion of the internet/tech sector is more a result of the Reagan/Bush economies. Unlike our current president, however, Clinton didn't get in the way and he didn't exacerbate the problem by trying to "bail" the tech sector out of its jam. The dotcom bubble was a great example of the market correcting itself and it did so unhindered by the government. A lesson that should have been learned by W. Bush and Obama.

Why would a president get in the way of a boom? Unless you are talking about an oil boom then we have Obama doing that. I think Clinton was generally pro business but as you noted Clinton didn't create the tech boom nor was he responsible for its bust. The tech boom was the primary driver of the economic boom of the 90's and its crash was the major reason for the recession of 2000. Can't give credit for one without giving credit for the other which was my point.

Clinton did, however, get in the way of some business. The pub congress handed Clinton drilling in ANWR in 1995 as part of the budget and Clinton promptly vetoed it stating we wouldn't see the oil for 10 years...well guess what? That would be 1,000,000 barrels per day of production now which amounts to roughly $36,000,000,000 a year. That's $36,000,000,000 per year off of our trade deficit, good paying jobs and the tax revenues they generate along with royalties to the government amounting to around $7,000,000,000 a year.

[sappstuf]

Why would a president get in the way of a boom? Unless you are talking about an oil boom then we have Obama doing that. I think Clinton was generally pro business but as you noted Clinton didn't create the tech boom nor was he responsible for its bust. The tech boom was the primary driver of the economic boom of the 90's and its crash was the major reason for the recession of 2000. Can't give credit for one without giving credit for the other which was my point.

Clinton did, however, get in the way of some business. The pub congress handed Clinton drilling in ANWR in 1995 as part of the budget and Clinton promptly vetoed it stating we wouldn't see the oil for 10 years...well guess what? That would be 1,000,000 barrels per day of production now which amounts to roughly $36,000,000,000 a year. That's $36,000,000,000 per year off of our trade deficit, good paying jobs and the tax revenues they generate along with royalties to the government amounting to around $7,000,000,000 a year.

Stop using math... The Party of ScienceTM has a terrible time with basic math.

[okie52]

Stop using math... The Party of ScienceTM has a terrible time with basic math.

Heh...I don't know if Sic em claims the party of science although he has recently claimed Gary Johnson....

I thought you were going to be up OK way about now?

[sappstuf]

Heh...I don't know if Sic em claims the party of science although he has recently claimed Gary Johnson....

I thought you were going to be up OK way about now?

I already came and went... I only spent a couple of days in Perry. Have been super busy trying to get ready to more to Italy after coming back from deployment and haven't had time to either wind my butt or scratch my watch..

[rock on sooner]

"Wind my butt or scratch my watch"...now THAT'S busy!