CRIMSON TIDE FOR DECADES
Dave Simpson
...
The future is Republican
Bush has policies that could keep his party in power for decades
by Michael Barone
Last week I wrote that America was a 49% nation, equally divided
between the parties, as indeed it was in elections for the House of
Representatives from 1996 to 2000 and in the 2000 presidential
election.
I was wrong. George W Bush beat John Kerry by 51% to 48%. That does
not sound like a large margin — but it is when you consider the
circumstances.
Bush was not running, as most winning incumbents do, in a time of
peace and prosperity. Americans are in the midst of a war, admittedly
of an unfamiliar kind — and although unemployment and inflation are
both low, there have been job losses since 2000 because of the
bursting of the dotcom bubble and the September 11 attacks.
Bush faced an implacably hostile old media led by The New York Times,
the news pages of The Washington Post and the old-line broadcast
networks CBS, ABC and NBC — which provided lavish coverage of violence
in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In September CBS ran a story about Bush's service in the Texas Air
National Guard that was based on forged documents; in October The New
York Times ran a story blaming Bush for the loss of a small cache of
Iraqi weapons that, it turns out, were not there when US troops
arrived.
In the circumstances it is notable that Bush won, and won
unambiguously. Turnout, according to the latest figures available, was
up 11% from 2000, a factor that was supposed to help the Democrats.
But Bush's record popular vote of 59m was 17% more than his popular
vote in 2000, while Kerry's 56m votes were only 10% more than Al
Gore's.
Bush's party won up and down the line. Republicans gained four seats
in the Senate and will have a 55-45 majority: no more tie-breaking by
Dick Cheney.
They gained five seats in the House of Representatives and will have a
234-201 majority there, just one seat less than their high-water march
after the 1994 elections.
The popular vote for the House seems (not all the returns have been
tallied) to be 51% Republican, 47% Democrat — about the same as in
2002, when Bush's job approval hovered around 65%.
Bush's organisational and turnout machine, made up mostly of 1m
volunteers, generated record Republican turnout in the battleground
states — and in other states as well. Exit polls showed a 39% to 35%
Democratic advantage over Republicans in party identification in 2000;
in 2004 it was 37% apiece.
Bush also made progress with fast-growing constituencies — up from 35%
to 44% of Hispanics and from 41% to 44% among Asians, as well as with
Jews (up from 19% to 25%). Some Democrats have argued that increased
voting by immigrants will make it impossible for the Republicans to
win a majority: that does not seem to be happening.
America has ceased to be a 49% nation and now is a 51% Republican
nation. And if 51% sounds low, consider a little history. The model
adopted by Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, for the Bush
presidency, is William McKinley, who won the 1896 election over the
prairie populist William Jennings Bryan by 51% to 47%. He was
re-elected in 1900, as controversy swirled over American military
involvement in the Philippines, by 52% to 45%.
McKinley and his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, put in place policies
— the gold standard, prosecution of business monopolies, an expansive
foreign policy — well suited to the surging industrial America of the
day. The Republican party became the majority party until the
depression of the 1930s.
Woodrow Wilson was the only Democrat to be elected president in those
years and won only when Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in
1912. The lesson: a 51% victory followed by policies appropriate to
the times can produce a long-run majority.
Bush has policies which, in my judgment, can work for his party in
post-industrial America just as McKinley and Roosevelt had policies
that worked for Republicans in industrial America.
On education, America's problem is low achievement in public schools.
Bush's response was a bipartisan law requiring testing and
accountability in elementary schools; he now seeks to expand that to
high schools.
On taxes, Bush got big tax cuts for individuals and made a start on
eliminating double taxation of investment; he aims now at
simplification of the tax code. On pensions, Bush wants to add
personal investment accounts to the social security system, which will
otherwise run out of money later in the century.
On healthcare, the president wants more market mechanisms, including a
health savings account in which people can keep the money they do not
spend on healthcare.
The common thread in all these proposals is more freedom and
accountability for the individual, less reliance on government and
large organisations that may not deliver on their promises.
This seems well suited to a post-industrial America in which most
adults are investors and in which people move from job to job, while
most jobs are generated by small businesses.
The Democrats assume that people want the government to take care of
them; Bush and the Republicans assume that Americans want a little
help in taking care of themselves and accumulating wealth, in what
Bush describes as an "ownership society".
It is unclear whether Bush can persuade Congress to pass specific
legislation that he has described so far only in vague terms. The one
goal his campaign failed to accomplish was winning the votes of the
under-thirties; they went for Kerry by 54% to 45%.
Bush believes that his ownership society programmes should appeal to
young voters in particular, but he and his party have not yet
successfully made the case.
Now, with a 3.5m popular vote majority and an uncontested victory,
with a Congress in which his party has robust rather than razor-thin
majorities, he has the chance to do so.
Will he do as well as McKinley and Roosevelt?
phil
the fall of america.ask anyone in the world
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.04110...@posting.google.com...
> Dedicated in all caps to all the extremist lefties.
>
> ...
>
> The future is Republican
>
> Bush has policies that could keep his party in power for decades
>
> by Michael Barone
>
>
> Last week I wrote that America was a 49% nation, equally divided
> between the parties, as indeed it was in elections for the House of
> Representatives from 1996 to 2000 and in the 2000 presidential
> election.
>
> I was wrong. George W Bush beat John Kerry by 51% to 48%. That does
> not sound like a large margin - but it is when you consider the
> circumstances.
>
> Bush was not running, as most winning incumbents do, in a time of
> peace and prosperity. Americans are in the midst of a war, admittedly
> of an unfamiliar kind - and although unemployment and inflation are
> both low, there have been job losses since 2000 because of the
> bursting of the dotcom bubble and the September 11 attacks.
>
> Bush faced an implacably hostile old media led by The New York Times,
> the news pages of The Washington Post and the old-line broadcast
> networks CBS, ABC and NBC - which provided lavish coverage of violence
> in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
>
> In September CBS ran a story about Bush's service in the Texas Air
> National Guard that was based on forged documents; in October The New
> York Times ran a story blaming Bush for the loss of a small cache of
> Iraqi weapons that, it turns out, were not there when US troops
> arrived.
>
> In the circumstances it is notable that Bush won, and won
> unambiguously. Turnout, according to the latest figures available, was
> up 11% from 2000, a factor that was supposed to help the Democrats.
> But Bush's record popular vote of 59m was 17% more than his popular
> vote in 2000, while Kerry's 56m votes were only 10% more than Al
> Gore's.
>
> Bush's party won up and down the line. Republicans gained four seats
> in the Senate and will have a 55-45 majority: no more tie-breaking by
> Dick Cheney.
>
> They gained five seats in the House of Representatives and will have a
> 234-201 majority there, just one seat less than their high-water march
> after the 1994 elections.
>
> The popular vote for the House seems (not all the returns have been
> tallied) to be 51% Republican, 47% Democrat - about the same as in
> 2002, when Bush's job approval hovered around 65%.
>
> Bush's organisational and turnout machine, made up mostly of 1m
> volunteers, generated record Republican turnout in the battleground
> states - and in other states as well. Exit polls showed a 39% to 35%
> Democratic advantage over Republicans in party identification in 2000;
> in 2004 it was 37% apiece.
>
> Bush also made progress with fast-growing constituencies - up from 35%
> to 44% of Hispanics and from 41% to 44% among Asians, as well as with
> Jews (up from 19% to 25%). Some Democrats have argued that increased
> voting by immigrants will make it impossible for the Republicans to
> win a majority: that does not seem to be happening.
>
> America has ceased to be a 49% nation and now is a 51% Republican
> nation. And if 51% sounds low, consider a little history. The model
> adopted by Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, for the Bush
> presidency, is William McKinley, who won the 1896 election over the
> prairie populist William Jennings Bryan by 51% to 47%. He was
> re-elected in 1900, as controversy swirled over American military
> involvement in the Philippines, by 52% to 45%.
>
> McKinley and his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, put in place policies
> - the gold standard, prosecution of business monopolies, an expansive
> foreign policy - well suited to the surging industrial America of the
dapra
Dave Simpson wrote:
> Dedicated in all caps to all the extremist lefties.
>
> ...
>
> The future is Republican
>
> Bush has policies that could keep his party in power for decades
>
> by Michael Barone
Mr. Barone misses the point. Not Bush but the Democrats have the power to keep
the Republicans in power. And the Democrats will do so as they did before.
Paolo Pizzi
news:23e7f86e.04110...@posting.google.com...
> Dedicated in all caps to all the extremist lefties.
Dedicated to all right-wing extremists:
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Scott Marquardt
Dedicated to morons who think that prevalent posting of known hoaxes will
somehow enhance their credibility.
Elsewhere, you've ludicrously brayed that the information comes from The
Economist. So does this, in the May 22, 2004 issue.
Last week we published a list that purported to show the IQs of states
voting for George Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Alas, we were the victim of a
hoax: no such data exists.
| http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2692859
While you've been credulously duped, others have been working the issue to
come up with accurate information:
| http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
See also:
| http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139
Steve Sailor notes this:
Nothing demonstrates the hypocrisy of Democrats on the topic of IQ than
the enthusiasm with which so many leapt aboard this bandwagon as a way to
prove they were mentally superior to Republicans, despite, in the
near-decade since the publication of The Bell Curve, having constantly
denounced IQ tests as meaningless, racist, and evil incarnate.
As one poster at snopes.com noted aptly of your ilk, pizza, "Ironic:
somebody publishing something stupid to prove that people that voted for
the opposition are stupid."
--
Scott
Dave Simpson
> Mr. Barone misses the point. Not Bush but the Democrats have the power to
> keep the Republicans in power. And the Democrats will do so as they did
> before.
For every voter they gain by going farther left, they'll lose two,
three, or more.
The smarter critics are starting to discuss the need to get rid of
the dinosaur-dropping baggage and try getting more Democratic
governors from southern and western states (where the growth has been,
and the power has been shifting) to seek federal office, similar to
the success of Bill Clinton.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
and goes downhill from there.
Democrats have some academics and other elites and the ocean of the
stupid.
Dave Simpson
dapra
Clinton only accelerated the demise of the Democrats. The Gutless Ones couldn't
win an election after 8 years of prosperity, when some of the benefits did
trickle down. The new Gutless Ones couldn't win an election after 4 years of
Bushs disasters.
Your comment is nothing but self-serving propaganda, intending to push the
Gutless Ones more to the right, so they lose more elections. Of course they
don't need too much pushing. They willingly serve their pay masters.
Jeff George
following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
I think all Republicrats are stupid, but the ones voting for Bush are
more stupid.
--
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
Wm James
>should be re-titled-
>the fall of america.ask anyone in the world
The rest of the world is irrelevant.
William R. James
dapra
Wm James wrote:
>
>
> The rest of the world is irrelevant.
>
> William R. James
>
Did you figure that out on your own, or God told you that?
Wm James
The USA is a conservative nation. Clinton won for several reasons.
The obvious one is Ross Perot. Bush had seriously ticked off his base
by defrauding them and going along with the tax hikes. Had Clinton
been John Kerry Bush would have won anyway, but Clinton is not Kerry.
Clinton was not seen as a leftist extremist Boston liberal, but rather
as a southern good ole boy in the democratic party. Not usual in
years past, although increasingly rare. But when his wife attempted
to take over and socialize a seventh of the US economy, the american
public responded by giving him a republican congress to stand in her
way. That should have been the first sign to the democrats that they
were seriously screwing themselves. But it was already too late, the
democrats traded their base for a collection of fanatic left wing
extremist groups decades earlier and so the path to democrat obscurity
was already set.
William R. James
dapra
Wm James wrote:
Yes, Mrs. Clinton tried to reform the health care system, but since the whole
industrialized world have coverage for all their citizens, except the US, I
wouldn't call it radical or 'socialist'. Though that was a factor, raising taxes
on the top earners turned the right wing against Clinton, and that's why he lost
the Congress.
After the tax hike on the rich, the economy were supposed to go into a
depression, but the opposite happened. The WSJ editorial board could never
forget that they were proven wrong. Though the wealthy made more money during
the 8 years of Clinton, then any time since the 1920's, Clinton was bashed
constantly.
The right never appreciated how much Clinton sold out his base. Sold out? No!
Destroyed it. But they do take advantage of it to push the envelope further.
Dean T
9-11, you are getting your come-uppence.
"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.com> wrote in message
news:bgr4p01a0l1tmnhsu...@4ax.com...
Jeff George
following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
>Jeff George wrote:
>
>> I think all Republicrats are stupid, but the ones voting for Bush are
>> more stupid.
>
> Your thinking is poor, then. Are you one of those low-IQ Democrats
>owned and exploited by that party?
Why would I be part of a party that I think is stupid (see above)?
>Sad, if so. If you were just
>trolling, you'll have to do better, be more shocking than simply sad
>(pathetic) with false statements.
It's a false statement that I think Republicrats are stupid? Thanks
for telling me what I think.
Wm James
I'm atheist, so take a guess.
William R. James
Wm James
No, she tried to take it over in direct opposition to the US
constitution, and common decency.
>but since the whole
>industrialized world have coverage for all their citizens, except the US, I
>wouldn't call it radical or 'socialist'.
The other socialist countries being socialist doesn't make socialism
any less socialist, or make it any less wrong.
>Though that was a factor, raising taxes
>on the top earners turned the right wing against Clinton, and that's why he lost
>the Congress.
Top earners? Taxes were raised on all who paid taxes, particularly
the hidden taxes, those taxes which make products more expensive
without directly robbing the consumer. He lost the congress because
he made the mistake of believing his own propaganda. When Bush got
the boot the democtats along with their cohorts in the leftist media
attempted to peddle it as a rejection of conservativism, as if Bush
were conservative.
>After the tax hike on the rich, the economy were supposed to go into a
>depression, but the opposite happened.
After the republican congress put some controls on spending, and it's
mere existance made investors feel more comfortable.
>The WSJ editorial board could never
>forget that they were proven wrong. Though the wealthy made more money during
>the 8 years of Clinton, then any time since the 1920's, Clinton was bashed
>constantly.
Wherver you are getting yourpropaganda from, it's made up BS. They
didn't make that much in the 20s. The 50s were better than the 20s.
>The right never appreciated how much Clinton sold out his base. Sold out? No!
>Destroyed it. But they do take advantage of it to push the envelope further.
Clinton was and is a joke. Nothing more and nothing less.
William R. James
dapra
Wm James wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:54:17 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, Mrs. Clinton tried to reform the health care system,
>
>
> No, she tried to take it over in direct opposition to the US
> constitution, and common decency.
>
What do you know about "common decency"? The biggest immorality, crime is that
the fathers (and mothers) give tax cut to themselves, and pass every penny of
the debt and deficit to their children. Monkeys or slugs can't do that. It takes
the a highly developed, greedy, corrupt generation of Republicans (and
Democrats) to that. What a degenerate, morally bankrupt parents WE ARE!
>
>>but since the whole
>>industrialized world have coverage for all their citizens, except the US, I
>>wouldn't call it radical or 'socialist'.
>
>
> The other socialist countries being socialist doesn't make socialism
> any less socialist, or make it any less wrong.
>
You may want to check your definition of "socialism", before you condemn the
rest of the world.
>
>>Though that was a factor, raising taxes
>>on the top earners turned the right wing against Clinton, and that's why he lost
>>the Congress.
>
>
> Top earners? Taxes were raised on all who paid taxes, particularly
> the hidden taxes, those taxes which make products more expensive
> without directly robbing the consumer. He lost the congress because
> he made the mistake of believing his own propaganda. When Bush got
> the boot the democtats along with their cohorts in the leftist media
> attempted to peddle it as a rejection of conservativism, as if Bush
> were conservative.
>
B.S. The right were upset, that Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate.
>
>>After the tax hike on the rich, the economy were supposed to go into a
>>depression, but the opposite happened.
>
>
> After the republican congress put some controls on spending, and it's
> mere existance made investors feel more comfortable.
>
You can twist it if you want. Was it the Republican Congress or Clinton? It
doesn't matter. Raising top marginal taxes DID NOT get us into a depression, as
the right wing predicted, but resulted in 6 years of prosperity. That's a FACT.
>
>>The WSJ editorial board could never
>>forget that they were proven wrong. Though the wealthy made more money during
>>the 8 years of Clinton, then any time since the 1920's, Clinton was bashed
>>constantly.
>
>
> Wherver you are getting yourpropaganda from, it's made up BS. They
> didn't make that much in the 20s. The 50s were better than the 20s.
>
Ok. I don't want to argue on that. But then the top marginal tax rate of over
90% in the 50's must not hurt the economy or the accumulation of wealth.
>
>>The right never appreciated how much Clinton sold out his base. Sold out? No!
>>Destroyed it. But they do take advantage of it to push the envelope further.
>
>
> Clinton was and is a joke. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
No. Clinton was the best to support the greedy oligarchy (clue; Nixon went to
China). Some idiots on the left thought he was on their side, and the right did
their best to paint him so.
> William R. James
>
>
dapra
Wm James wrote:
Whether you are an atheist or not, your remark of "The rest of the world is
irrelevant" only shows arrogance and stupidity.
Dave Simpson
He and brighter Democratic leaders realized that yes, the US is a
conservative nation, and the Dems tried seizing on standard
conservative US goals, forced on Clinton by the Republicans, such as
fiscal reform, welfare reform, etc. The Dems tried to fight off much
reform, but caved in to reality on some of it. What we have seen with
Bush, who is on the GOP's liberal side (only just to the right of
Colin Powell, and the Northeastern RINO Republicans, and the governor
of California), is an attempt to appeal to those to the left with the
prescription drug program, and with squelching of immigration reform
to appeal to Hispanics. Both moves were against standard US positions
on these issues, and were compounded by alternative interests at work
at the same time (in the case of immigration, not wanting to upset
business that uses immigrant labor). We see that as well with Bush's
noteworthy (even alarming) departure from normal US policy, and
advocacy of a Palestinian state, at the political and possible worse
expense of Israel -- along with trying to cram the Road Map down
Israel's throat. (Again, other interests are also suspected of being
at work here: oil and Arab-Muslim ties to energy-industry insiders
close to and within the Bush administration.) Bush reaches leftward,
if only symbolically and with other motives at heart, and is not
"radical," "extreme," or "far right" as the lying losers continue to
state. In fact, Bush has marginalized the true far right, and only
throws an occasional sop to the Religious Right in order to motivate
them to vote rather than stay home in protest when the elections are
held (because Bush and the GOP know they won't vote Democratic).
The Democrats continue to be tainted, and for every voter they seek
farther to the left, they'll lose multiple voters toward the saner
center. The Dems will have to do better than the lightweight,
suspicious "Third Way" nonsense (which more astute lefties would
immediately grasp as similar to what might be said about Bush's
reaches leftward, as I described them above, with alternative motives
and explanations), and will have to get out of the worthless 1960s
mentality and professional-victim, interest-group,
USA-and-West-should-feel-guilty-about-their-superior-historical-record-in-the-world
pathology if they want to appeal to Americans of quality.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
(* sigh *) Quit with the delusional BS, already.
Dave Simpson
Wm James
>
>
>Wm James wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:46:51 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Wm James wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The rest of the world is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>William R. James
>>>>
>>>
>>>Did you figure that out on your own, or God told you that?
>>
>>
>> I'm atheist, so take a guess.
>>
>> William R. James
>
>Whether you are an atheist or not, your remark of "The rest of the world is
>irrelevant" only shows arrogance and stupidity.
Arrogannce, perhaps. The rest of the world is irrelevant. In the US
the US Constitution is the law, the rest of the world has no say so.
=With regard to forreign policy, most of the world is infected by
dictators which are irrelevant, and the slave render themselves
irrelevant by choosing not to fight for their freedom. If you can't
refute that, just admit it. Name calling isn't a substitute for
argument even if it's all you have.
William R. James
Dave Simpson
> should be re-titled-
> the fall of america.ask anyone in the world
We don't have to submit to the desires of the losers in this world,
or take false statements like yours seriously.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> >> I think all Republicrats are stupid, but the ones voting for Bush are
> >> more stupid.
> >
> > Your thinking is poor, then. Are you one of those low-IQ Democrats
> >owned and exploited by that party?
> Why would I be part of a party that I think is stupid (see above)?
There you go again -- failing. (* sigh *)
The Democrats are the party of the stupid, exploiting and buying the
votes of the stupid. Was your vote bought, cheaply?
Dave Simpson
Jeff George
following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
>Phil wrote (badly):
America is a joke.
Jeff George
following from Wm James <wrjames...@spamreaper.com>:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:55:19 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Wm James wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:46:51 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wm James wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The rest of the world is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>William R. James
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you figure that out on your own, or God told you that?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm atheist, so take a guess.
>>>
>>> William R. James
>>
>>Whether you are an atheist or not, your remark of "The rest of the world is
>>irrelevant" only shows arrogance and stupidity.
>
>Arrogannce, perhaps. The rest of the world is irrelevant.
To whom?
>In the US the US Constitution is the law,
And those in power ignore the Constitution in their quest for complete
control over the American People.
>the rest of the world has no say so.
Apparently, neither do the American People.
>=With regard to forreign policy, most of the world is infected by
>dictators which are irrelevant,
Everything you say is purely subjective rhetoric. Are you not even
aware of that?
>and the slave render themselves
>irrelevant by choosing not to fight for their freedom.
Prime example.
Jeff George
following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
>Jeff George writeL
>
>> >> I think all Republicrats are stupid, but the ones voting for Bush are
>> >> more stupid.
>> >
>> > Your thinking is poor, then. Are you one of those low-IQ Democrats
>> >owned and exploited by that party?
>
>> Why would I be part of a party that I think is stupid (see above)?
>
> There you go again -- failing. (* sigh *)
You have failed to show that you are capable of rational thought.
> The Democrats are the party of the stupid, exploiting and buying the
>votes of the stupid. Was your vote bought, cheaply?
My vote wasn't bought by anyone. You appear to be a rabid Republicrat
of the Republican variety. That is the party of the ignorant and
superstitious, who place the value of money above humanity. They also
play upon the fears of people that cannot think for themselves. It is
obvious why you would support them.
Bob Tiernan
So hey, whaddya think of what's going on in Holland?
Your dreamworld of a free land where you can openly
buy pot at a cafe and then visit a nice hooker
(fine with me, as a libertarian) is about to go down
the crapper thanks to your third-world heroes the
Muslims with their 14th Centuryisms. Why are so
many on the left so worshipful of such garbage, and
will you wake up before it's too late?
Or will you really secretly welcome a terror campaign
that attacks "globalism" and "capitalism" and all
that? How stupid. You'll see a very shitty planet
when it gets stepped up. But then, it so happens
that Al Qaeda and similar groups have the same goals
as the anarchists of a century ago -- a stateless
movement attacking a society it doesn't like.
No wonder you guys are silent.
Bob T
LibForBush
Well, if by a "joke" you mean the strongest economy, the strongest
military, the highest ideals, the best of just about everything, then
okay, I guess we are a "joke." How does it feel to be insanely
jealous of a "joke?"
Dave Simpson
> You have failed to show that you are capable of rational thought.
More lies. Pathetic.
You probably were exploited along with the other idiots in this
country by the Democrats in the traditional way. No thought required
-- and may well be impossible for you, anyway.
Dave Simpson
dapra
Dave Simpson wrote:
Jeff wrote; "You appear to be a rabid Republicrat of the Republican variety."
'Republicrat'. Does the word give you a clue, Dave? No. You are clue less. You
just paste what was given to you by your boss.
One would expect more comprehension and independent thought from you posting for
years.
Dean T
loyalty. I suppose you like capitalism too? Class TRAITOR!!!
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58MAILDIR...@shell1.pacifier.net...
Jeff George
the following from LibForBush <LibFo...@yahooSPAM.com>:
>Jeff George wrote:
>
>> On 13 Nov 2004 12:17:02 -0800 I used my godlike powers to observe the
>> following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
>>
>>
>>>Phil wrote (badly):
>>>
>>>
>>>>should be re-titled-
>>>>the fall of america.ask anyone in the world
>>>
>>> We don't have to submit to the desires of the losers in this world,
>>>or take false statements like yours seriously.
>>
>>
>> America is a joke.
>
>Well, if by a "joke" you mean the strongest economy, the strongest
>military, the highest ideals,
Since when does zero equal highest?
>the best of just about everything, then
>okay, I guess we are a "joke." How does it feel to be insanely
>jealous of a "joke?"
Why would I be jealous of a country I live in?
Wm James
>
>
>Wm James wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:54:17 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, Mrs. Clinton tried to reform the health care system,
>>
>>
>> No, she tried to take it over in direct opposition to the US
>> constitution, and common decency.
>>
>
>What do you know about "common decency"? The biggest immorality, crime is that
>the fathers (and mothers) give tax cut to themselves, and pass every penny of
>the debt and deficit to their children. Monkeys or slugs can't do that. It takes
>the a highly developed, greedy, corrupt generation of Republicans (and
>Democrats) to that. What a degenerate, morally bankrupt parents WE ARE!
True to a point. But you seem to be assuming static wealth. Lower
taxes generate more wealth. But the spending is the problem, not the
taxes. I'd rather leave the next generation broke and in debt than
enslave them.
>>>but since the whole
>>>industrialized world have coverage for all their citizens, except the US, I
>>>wouldn't call it radical or 'socialist'.
>>
>>
>> The other socialist countries being socialist doesn't make socialism
>> any less socialist, or make it any less wrong.
>>
>
>You may want to check your definition of "socialism", before you condemn the
>rest of the world.
I've posted it several times.
>>>Though that was a factor, raising taxes
>>>on the top earners turned the right wing against Clinton, and that's why he lost
>>>the Congress.
>>
>>
>> Top earners? Taxes were raised on all who paid taxes, particularly
>> the hidden taxes, those taxes which make products more expensive
>> without directly robbing the consumer. He lost the congress because
>> he made the mistake of believing his own propaganda. When Bush got
>> the boot the democtats along with their cohorts in the leftist media
>> attempted to peddle it as a rejection of conservativism, as if Bush
>> were conservative.
>>
>
>B.S. The right were upset, that Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate.
Some were, most didn't notice or really care. They did notice and
care that She was attempting to create a socialist system in spite of
the historical perfect record of failures of such things.
>>>After the tax hike on the rich, the economy were supposed to go into a
>>>depression, but the opposite happened.
>>
>>
>> After the republican congress put some controls on spending, and it's
>> mere existance made investors feel more comfortable.
>>
>
>You can twist it if you want. Was it the Republican Congress or Clinton?
Congress controls taxes and spending. The president (and his wife in
this case) can apply some pressure, but ultimately, it's the congress
who is to credit or blame.
>It
>doesn't matter. Raising top marginal taxes DID NOT get us into a depression, as
>the right wing predicted, but resulted in 6 years of prosperity. That's a FACT.
No, he only had a democratic congress for two years. The last six of
his years were under republican control. Investors were far more
confortable risking capital after the republicans took the congress
for the first time in half a century. Clinton's agenda was cut off at
the knees. THAT's a FACT!
>>>The WSJ editorial board could never
>>>forget that they were proven wrong. Though the wealthy made more money during
>>>the 8 years of Clinton, then any time since the 1920's, Clinton was bashed
>>>constantly.
>>
>>
>> Wherver you are getting yourpropaganda from, it's made up BS. They
>> didn't make that much in the 20s. The 50s were better than the 20s.
>>
>
>Ok. I don't want to argue on that. But then the top marginal tax rate of over
>90% in the 50's must not hurt the economy or the accumulation of wealth.
The 50s was a unique period. No matter what we did we succeeded
because we were the only industrialized country with a fairly modern
and intact infrastructure. The Kenedy tax cut was absolutely enormous
and worked wonders at a difficult time. His ideas were later called
"Reganomics".
>>>The right never appreciated how much Clinton sold out his base. Sold out? No!
>>>Destroyed it. But they do take advantage of it to push the envelope further.
>>
>>
>> Clinton was and is a joke. Nothing more and nothing less.
>>
>
>No. Clinton was the best to support the greedy oligarchy (clue; Nixon went to
>China). Some idiots on the left thought he was on their side, and the right did
>their best to paint him so.
Nixon, as crooked as he was, was likely the most fit to micromanage
government in US history. Unfortunately, even the most fit isn't fit
for that. But Clinton really didn't care. He was there for the
parties. Some call him immoral. In reality, he's amoral, an empty
suit with no values or principles, good or bad.
William R. James
dapra
Wm James wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:03 -0800, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What do you know about "common decency"? The biggest immorality, crime is that
>>the fathers (and mothers) give tax cut to themselves, and pass every penny of
>>the debt and deficit to their children. Monkeys or slugs can't do that. It takes
>>the a highly developed, greedy, corrupt generation of Republicans (and
>>Democrats) to that. What a degenerate, morally bankrupt parents WE ARE!
>
>
> True to a point. But you seem to be assuming static wealth. Lower
> taxes generate more wealth. But the spending is the problem, not the
> taxes. I'd rather leave the next generation broke and in debt than
> enslave them.
>
You are repeating a slogan, "Lower taxes generate more wealth." In some cases it
is true. It's a lot more complex. But it's just as true that 'insufficient taxes
bankrupt the country'. Presently that seems to be the case.
>>
>>B.S. The right were upset, that Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate.
>
>
> Some were, most didn't notice or really care. They did notice and
> care that She was attempting to create a socialist system in spite of
> the historical perfect record of failures of such things.
>
There is no historical records in the US. Roosevelt 'socialist' initiatives
saved the capitalist system. The GI bill created a middle class.
>
>>
>>You can twist it if you want. Was it the Republican Congress or Clinton?
>
>
> Congress controls taxes and spending. The president (and his wife in
> this case) can apply some pressure, but ultimately, it's the congress
> who is to credit or blame.
>
>
>>It
>>doesn't matter. Raising top marginal taxes DID NOT get us into a depression, as
>>the right wing predicted, but resulted in 6 years of prosperity. That's a FACT.
>
>
> No, he only had a democratic congress for two years. The last six of
> his years were under republican control. Investors were far more
> confortable risking capital after the republicans took the congress
> for the first time in half a century. Clinton's agenda was cut off at
> the knees. THAT's a FACT!
>
The Republican Congress? So what did the Republican Congress with a Republican
President gave us last year? $560+ billion deficit. $2000 for every man, woman
and child. $8000 for a family of four.
>
>>
>>Ok. I don't want to argue on that. But then the top marginal tax rate of over
>>90% in the 50's must not hurt the economy or the accumulation of wealth.
>
>
> The 50s was a unique period. No matter what we did we succeeded
> because we were the only industrialized country with a fairly modern
> and intact infrastructure. The Kenedy tax cut was absolutely enormous
> and worked wonders at a difficult time. His ideas were later called
> "Reganomics".
>
You pick and choose you reasoning. My point is that with 90% top marginal tax
rate, we did just fine in the 50's! In fact a lot better than now.
>>
>>No. Clinton was the best to support the greedy oligarchy (clue; Nixon went to
>>China). Some idiots on the left thought he was on their side, and the right did
>>their best to paint him so.
>
>
> Nixon, as crooked as he was, was likely the most fit to micromanage
> government in US history. Unfortunately, even the most fit isn't fit
> for that. But Clinton really didn't care. He was there for the
> parties. Some call him immoral. In reality, he's amoral, an empty
> suit with no values or principles, good or bad.
>
Bill Clinton did care. He realigned the Democratic Party to serve Corporate
America. He cared about the Corporate oligarchy and very little of the American
people.
> William R. James
>
Jeff George
following from Wm James <wrjames...@spamreaper.com>:
>Some were, most didn't notice or really care. They did notice and
>care that She was attempting to create a socialist system in spite of
>the historical perfect record of failures of such things.
You keep trying to make this claim (without any evidence I might add)
when it has repeatedly been shown to you how successful socialized
medicine has been throughout the world.
Dave Simpson
> Jeff wrote[,] "You appear to be a rabid Republicrat of the Republican
> variety."
I read it. Do you know how to read -- for comprehension?
He was wrong, stupidly wrong. He doesn't get excused for being
blind or mentally ill when reporting stupidly wrong "observations."
[fiction deleted]
Dave Simpson
dapra
Dave Simpson wrote:
> [D]apra wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff wrote[,] "You appear to be a rabid Republicrat of the Republican
>>variety."
>
>
> I read it. Do you know how to read -- for comprehension?
>
> He was wrong, stupidly wrong. He doesn't get excused for being
> blind or mentally ill when reporting stupidly wrong "observations."
>
I think, it was an accurate observation. So how would you characterize yourself?
Jeff George
following from david_l...@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson):
>[D]apra wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote[,] "You appear to be a rabid Republicrat of the Republican
>> variety."
>
> I read it. Do you know how to read -- for comprehension?
>
> He was wrong, stupidly wrong. He doesn't get excused for being
>blind or mentally ill when reporting stupidly wrong "observations."
You are the blind one. You accused me of being a Democrat when if you
had any reading comprehension you would see that I'm not.
--
"Every man dies, not every man really lives."
(spoken by William Wallace in "Braveheart")