• Good job Mike.  Hang in there.  We democrats are far and few between in this area, but the tide is turning.  I think President-elect Obama will do just fine. 

    November 17, 2008 at 6:54 p.m.

  • Obviously Mike, you have only read the posts you chose to for your purposes. I have repeatedly stated that Bush sold out to the Democrats spending to get his War in Iraq funded. Does that my position clear?
    Sorry that I work for a living and haven't kept up with every quote from every economist/bureaucrat regarding public funds. I did read YOUR support of a minimum $4 dollar a gallon gas price.
    My point is....if you feel YOU aren't PAYING your SHARE, you can feel free to send in all your income, your wealth, and your childrens inheritance to the Federal Government. But, as typical, you prefer to send SOMEONE ELSE's assets to the PUBLIC WELL for REDISTRIBUTION.
    Did I "get mine" and "now you get yours". Amen, brother. But don't "take mine" to "give it to you". I support you in the same pursuits as me. Free enterprise. Personal responsibilty. "Stand on your own two feet". "The American Way".
    Did your last major purchase support the UAW? Teamsters?
    I know your purchase of a Toyota Prius is a proud moment for you. I'll stick to supporting American companies and drive my F-250 with pride. You vote with your dollars, I'll vote with mine. Just keep your hand off of mine.

    November 13, 2008 at 8:09 p.m.

  • Mike,
    You do keep me laughing. I can't leave this one out on the table so one more reply then I'm done.
    We were not talking about winning in Afghanistan. Not sure what your last point is but it is Mr. Obama that has said he wants to pull troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan so that is a matter maybe the two of you should take up. I didn't bring up Afghanistan you did and the discussion was ending the cold war. You should learn a little history, Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were vital in bringing down the USSR and ending the cold war. Keep your revisionist history for those that don't know better.
    As I said, Joe the plumber is just a hard working regular guy and he asked a question. Now you're calling him an idiot. So what, he took welfare. He didn't stay on welfare and the only reason you know he took welfare is because the democrat machine went into high gear to smear Joe just like they will anyone else that dare embarrass the chosen one, Mr. Obama.
    You are just floundering here, pulling quotes that really don't have anything to do with this topic or even the reply to me. If you like Friedman then listen to him.
    Now you have called me dogma. You have said I am unwilling to compromise. You have said I am all about me. It is time I pointed out that you should look in the mirror. Look at your post and show me compromise. Show me where you don't support your belief less than I do. Of course I think conservative is right-correct. If I didn't I wouldn't be conservative. It's not just a thing I do to irritate liberals, it is what I believe in and what I believe is best for our country. I a not ashamed to be called conservative. I am proud to be called conservative.
    As I said, I'm done for today so have a nice evening sir and we'll debate another day.

    November 13, 2008 at 5:33 p.m.

  • 1)It was the Soviets foreign policy that did them in..Much like Iraq & Afghanistan are hurting us today..You should learn a little history...No one ever wins in Afghanistan.
    2)Taxes..Point is you have to find an optimum on taxes..Clinton had the boom years (he raised taxes) left a surplus..It is not a literal low tax rates increase revenues..I have debated this before...Here is an example I have used.:
    Professor Arthur Laffer made this entire concept quite understandable. To simpify, if tax rates are 0%, obviously revenue is also 0%. If taxes are 100%, revenues are still 0%, because no one is going to work if the government confiscates all earnings.
    The inescapable conclusion is that optimal tax revenues are generated by an intermediate and generally acceptable tax rate. Therefore, if taxes are too high (which they usually are), reducing the rate will lead to increased revenues.
    Joe the plumber is an idiot . A glory hound that was in way over his head..He has used welfare ,yet he condemned it....Enough said.
    One track mind? I am just quoting Tom Friedman's idea and it is because gasoline will go up again...We have seen this picture before (1970s)....It won't see the light of day but the investors will not fund the innovators because we are not serious about getting off fossil fuels....Like Japan is kicking our butt in the auto industry ,they will probably come up the next green innovation and we will have to pay top dollar for it...It's a pay me now or pay me later.
    Oh that stupid idea....Japan kept their price of gasoline high and made fuel efficient cars...Look where they are...Europe gasoline prices have been high for years....Another quote from "The earth is flat"...Tom Friedman " While I toured Asia and China,I spoke to many business people and not once did the subject of Iraq come up."...They get up in the morning thinking about the next innovation not Iraq.

    November 13, 2008 at 4:43 p.m.

  • So what caused the bankruptcy and who was supporting Afghanistan?
    Really, everyone sold all their stock? No one owned any stock? I missed that and revenues increases were a direct result of lowering taxes. I'm not gonna go look it all up for you, if you want to labor the point go ahead, no skin off my nose. I just thought you wanted to be honest.
    OK, I've not read many of bighorn's post to know, I was only going to by the one posted on this blog, you know, the current topic. I'm sure bighorn doesn't need my help and admit i was just taking a little shot at you and your socialist tendencies. How else do you define "spread the wealth around"?  In response to that statement redistribution of wealth is the only intellectually honest interpretation and what the heck does Joe the plumber have to with this. Just because he revealed the socialist program of Mr. Obama is no reason to attack him. Joe is a fine upstanding hard working ambitious American. All he did was ask a question
    A lot of people win awards, that doesn't mean they are not elitist and out of touch or that their ideals are not half-baked. Sure people adapted. We adjusted their budget and if the prices had not started falling we would still be adjusting. You are one track minded. You have not thought this $4.00 p/gal through. How much of our economy does fuel price touch? 75-80% Whew, that could be rough and could cause a major problem. But enough of that, it's a stupid ideal and won't happen because it's a stupid ideal. I'm not saying gas won't go up to $4.00 p/gal but it won't be a government manipulated situation. And I'm not calling any person stupid, just the ideal.

    November 13, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.

  • dohBama
    1)Myth number #1 ..Reagan did not end cold war...bankruptcy/Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union
    2)Myth #2 Tax revenues increase was short term ,when people sold all their stock(capital gains) revenues started decreasing
    3)Myth #3 I don't want to saddle anyone....Government funds student loans ..Conservatives want to defund student loans.
    4)Myth #4 Unless you are (bighorn) I have seen enough of his posts criticizing the working poor  hence "I've got mine
    5)Myth #5 sarcasm is not a substitute for compromise and ideas..Depleting 401Ks  etc.
    6)Myth #6 Tom Friedman is a multiple Pulitzer Prize  winner ,respected by many....Right-wingers mock ideas but have none of their own except "Don't raise my taxes"
    Bighorn said"To demand "higher taxes" and not do as I suggest makes you a hypocrite of the highest order" =Name calling and  Misstating one’s position, exaggerating the facts, half truths..all rolled into one neat package.
    Intellectual honestly? Are you kidding me..Obama has been called socialist,Marxist, etc ...Joe the plumber...redistributing wealth  and now we are throwing intellectual honesty out the window....I am 63 years old ,not born yesterday.
    I post in general terms and ideas to build on..Not on a truth certain or in a literal sense.
    Naysayers do not ever see the big picture....Sure,at first $4 a gallon will hurt all but like in July people will adapt and if told like we should have been told in 1970 "we must rid ourself of fossil fuel" they will make the sacrifice..September 12,2001 Bush should have ask us to sacrifice instead of "go shopping.".......Investing in fixing the high cost of health insurance will soften the burden on big business...This will help them with labor negotiations and trade agreements......That's why 70% of Americans think a young president would be more open to bold new ideas like President Kennedy's moon shot....Naysayers are stuck in the 80s.

    November 13, 2008 at 3:55 p.m.

  • Mike,
    There you go again. You blast bighorn for ... "Misstating one’s position, exaggerating the facts, half truths" then you turn around and do the same thing.
    1) Reagan grew government. While it is true the government spending increased under Reagan it is also true the he ended the cold war with the biggest build up in defense and much of the growth you credit him was defense spending. It is also true that he grew revenues by reducing taxes.
    2) Palin and windfall profit tax. It is true that Palin did increase windfall profit tax on oil companies in Alaska but the whole truth is Alaskans have been receiving a dividend on profits from oil companies since 1982. And unlike most other states Alaska owns the mineral rights to resources so it is only right that profits be distributed to the people. That is not exactly the same thing as redistribution of wealth unless you want to throw intellectual honesty out the window.
    3) Since you don't mind investing in our future the heck with student loans, just go ahead and invest enough to pay for the collage education of our children and grandchildren. Why do you want to saddle them with student loans? The borrower is slave to the lender you know.
    4) I'm not as smart as you but I didn't see anything in bighorns post that made me think he has an "I got Mine" attitude nor did I see any name calling. Seems like that is just the way you wanted to spin it. What he said is true and there is no law preventing those that want higher taxes from sending more money to the IRS. You, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden should re-enforce your patriotism and send them all you can. Withdraw your 401(k), they'll take 40% of it, and that would be a big patriotic step.
    5) Last one, I promise. Have you any ideal what long term $4.00 per gallon gas will do? It will force conservation, that is true. But government manipulated markets will do a lot more than that. And what will that do the less fortunate in our society, force us to subsidize them with fuel credits? Friedman is an elitist way out of touch with the working man and his time has come and gone. How do we know some of the old ideals won't work in the 21st century? we've not tried any of them.

    November 13, 2008 at 3:03 p.m.

  • Bighorn
    Misstating one’s position, exaggerating the facts, half truths, name calling and sarcasm never leads to a good debate or solution….No demands, no call for higher indivual taxes, or free schooling.
    You and Lotex (mmm) often quote Ronald Reagan “Government is not the solution but the problem”..Reagan grew government…Your company probably takes government contracts and you take advantage of a tax deferred 401K…If we have differences its how the government spends (we the people) tax revenues….You seem to have an “I’ve got mine” mindset.
    1) I don’t mind investing in our future with affordable student loans for our children/grandchildren.
    2) I have never heard you complain about the $10 billion a month for Iraq, Blackwater & Halliburton.
    3) Tom Friedman suggested the $4 a gallon to force us to conserve and it would send a message to innovators & investors as to how serious we are on getting off fossil fuels. A windfall profits tax would be imposed on the oil companies anytime oil gets below $100 a barrel..Similar to Sarah Palin’s windfall tax on the oil companies in her state but she gave the excess to the taxpayers..Ha..Redistribution of the wealth.

    Manipulating the markets? Of course we do it all the time like lowering interest rates will help you 401K.....A lower capital gains rate will help you when you sell your stock….A calculator has a plus & minus key…Old slogans and ideals are not suited for the 21st century.

    November 13, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.

  • I suggest that those of you who feel we should be taxed at a higher rate should mail in more money on April 15th. Wipe out your 401K, send the check to United States Treasury. Kid's college fund? Send it to Washington. They are going to educate your kid for free anyway.Tax fuel to the $4 per gallon level regardless of the market? Go ahead and send your "excess income" to the Federal Govenment. They won't mind.
    To demand "higher taxes" and not do as I suggest makes you a hypocrite of the highest order. Make sure your Government has plenty of money to spend by sending all of yours in.

    November 13, 2008 at 6:43 a.m.

  • I'm not really a republican (especially not the "new breed") or a democrat.  I lean libertarian but not to the Ron Paul extent. I heard someone sum it up in a manner that I tend to agree with.
    Democrats are the party of tax and spend.
    Republicans have become the party of borrow and spend.
    The Pew Research poll was not exit, it was pre-election. The MSNBC (Mathew's Silly National Barack Channel) poll was exit polling.
    I will steer clear of the forums, some of those folks are whacked.

    November 12, 2008 at 5:15 p.m.

  • Settle down dogma
    1)I said O'Reilly exaggerated the meaning of that Pew poll spun to suit his needs....Both polls are snapshots(all are)of the exit polls but some university will do a study sometime in the future...You can win the  interpretation that the the country is center right for right now but I am going to wait for a definite meaning of the labels.
    2)At one point someone will define the meaning of liberalism today(not just your version of everything that is bad)then a poll needs to be retaken..For instance 39% identify themselves as Democrats and 34% Republicans..Are all Democrats liberal? Are all Republican's conservative.
    3)Many ,many times the Obama camp identified  the Republicans/Conservatives as the opposition without placing a label on them.
    4)I supported the bailout but I saw it as a rescue plan....Dig into the details and you will see the government might make money off it.
    As I said in my profile ,I am not big on ideology,labels when it comes to economics....Free market principals,self -reliance,balanced budget,smaller government ,transparency,lowering the debt and deficit,and just enough regulation should be the goal.....The free market got out of whack so both parties should come up with a bipartisan solution...After this current financial mess ,we need to tackle Social Security and Medicare.
    Go into the "Change" thread and see how the social conservatives use all the labels.....I am not saying someone from the left won't do it but it is an exception rather than the rule.

    November 12, 2008 at 4:51 p.m.

  • Well Mike,
    In typical liberal fashion, you have claimed a poll to be exaggerated then used the numbers from it to try to spin things your way. I would say you tried to do an O'Reilly. :-)   If the poll (exaggerated poll?) shows, 22% liberal and 44% moderate and 34% conservative wouldn't that mean the country is center-RIGHT? I mean if you put moderate in the middle and 22% on the left and 34% on the right wouldn't the balance lean right? I didn't say only democrats do exit polls; I did say that democrats are more likely to participate in exit polling.  On "what is a liberal?” Since these are exit polls, I assume that the people completing the poll know where they stand. These are self-applied labels, not someone else labeling. On your party not being "hung up on labels". I agree that when your party and liberals are speaking of themselves they don't like labels, especially the liberal label. However when they are speaking of someone with whom they disagree they sure don't mind flinging around the labels and they get down right mean, nasty and dishonest with those labels. Now, I've found a point where we agree; don't you love compromise. The bail out is/was socialism and the worst kind, corporate socialism. I hate it and did not support it and where I had a choice, I did not vote for one single person that supported the bail out. That means I had to vote for a couple of democrats and a couple of libertarians in this past election. On the presidential ballot, there was no real choice. Both candidates of the two major parties supported the bail out, so I chose the lesser of two evils.

    November 12, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.

  • Not exactly the topic of this blog but since you went to all threw trouble of providing sources for the topic of your choice..I will answer.
    I have seen those polls exaggerated on Bill O’Reilly to support his culture war. I think you said only Democrats answered the exit polls. Let’s say the two polls are right but the lone MSNBC poll indicates to me the country is more to the center (44%). I have been saying this for years; it’s those Independents that swing an election.
    What that poll didn’t ask: What is a liberal? Code Pink or just a Democrat? From my experience my party is not hung up on labels. I did mention a couple of times that I really don’t know where the ideology of the country is.
    I recently saw a map of the way the country voted (a sea of blue) and Chris Matthews devoted a segment to it yesterday. The only area of the country where the Republican Party saw an increase from 2004 was in Arkansas,Tennesse,upper Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia…Rural white areas. Why is that? The GOP governors are in Miami today to discuss that very thing. They know they have to change or get used to their minority status.
    You just did it again “I will treat him with the respect deserving of the office” then you go on to say “we will not sit back and allow him to turn this great country into a pot hole of socialism.”
    1) He was not the president when our government bailed out the financial market (socialism)
    2) Ronald Reagan passed the EITC (socialism)
    3) FDR passed Social Security (socialism)
    We passed that socialism threshold a long time ago..Every industrialized country has some components of socialism in their government.

    You really need to do a little research (again) before just parroting the right-wing talking point

    George W. Bush & Barack Obama is really an apple to oranges.
    1) George W, Bush was controversially placed in office but after 9/11 he had a 75% approval rating.
    2)He squandered that with the invasion of Iraq without an exit plan, circumventing the constitution,torture,Harriet Meirs,Alberto Gonzales,Karl Rove,Katrina,85% think the country is going in the wrong direction, and now the financial mess…He earned that low approval rating.
    3) He couldn’t sustain that low mark (4 years) without Repulicans, Democrats, and Independents having the same feeling.

    IMO You will continue to be anti-Obama until he leaves office….Read your post It’s all about you and your beliefs..Nothing about compromise.

    November 12, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.

  • On media bias...  reference site:
    Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.
    On the country being liberal, conservative, or moderate... refrence site: ..., MSNBC, not exactly a bastion of conservatism).22% liberal------------- 44% Moderate------------- 34% Conservative
    Barack Obama is my president. I do not agree with his ideology. I will treat him with the respect deserving of the office. I will not lower myself or my country by making fun of his physical characteristics. I will not call him names or treat him the way liberals have treated George Bush. Mr. Obama should know that we will not sit back and allow him to turn this great country into a pot hole of socialism.

    November 11, 2008 at 7:34 p.m.

  • "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism,"
    Soviet Leader Nikita Krushchev, 1959


    November 11, 2008 at 5:44 p.m.

  • Raising the price of gasoline is not part of the stimulus package...It is more of a wish by Tom Friedman and a group of economist with whom I agree with..I admitted we would not do it because we didn't in the 1970s when we were in the same situation...I feel we won't learn from our past mistakes.
    The way we did  things for the past 30 years is just not suited for the 21st century..India,China, and other Asian nations want that oil and they are not bogged down in two wars.....Getting out of Iraq and Middle East oil should be our goal...You seem to want status quo.
    Apparently you don't know that we followed the European model of bailing out the financial markets.So,if they don't know what they are doing.......Great Britain financial institutions are  models to immulate...Transparentcy with just the right amount of regulation.
    China did it to stimulate their markets since this is a world wide crisis...Without consumers China will dry up.

    November 11, 2008 at 5:42 p.m.

  • John
    If you are going to brag on yourself, you should at least work on your reading comprehension.
    California was meant as a coast to coast economic package to repair the infrastructure. Not meant to literally pick out California or any other state.
    Raising the gas prices is not to manipulate the market at all…It has a couple of goals.
    1) This would help us continue to conserve.
    2)Innovators will not work on alternative fuels if we are going to stay addicted to oil…Investors will continue to be scarce if we do not show an inclination to change our fossil fuel habits.
    We need to get off Middle East oil dependency.

    You write as if you are the only one that has taken a class on economics…The stimulus proposal will be accepted by both parties with slight variations….Paul Volker and Warren Buffett supporting Obama’s ideas carry a little more clout than you do…Don’t you think?
    Stimulus package will not be a rebate check but more of an infrastructure package…It’s about jobs not about Wall Street.
    I’ve read some of your ideas in the past and IMO you are not a financial genius…I admit I am not a genius, but I have read the stimulus package proposals and have watched the reactions of the CNBC money managers. China unveiled a stimulus package today and so is Europe.

    November 11, 2008 at 4:59 p.m.

  • It's not about President Bush.
    Unless we get get the jobs going ,who will buy the products...It's a second bailout...GMC,Ford could get loans...We could redirect $700 billion from banks to states for bridges,construction etc.....Substitute me for we....Need to look at it from adifferent angle...Those last eight years should not be repeated.

    November 11, 2008 at 1:37 p.m.

  • So then it is ok for big major corporations to fail because the government will take care of it, but who takes care of the little Mom & Pop business that are failing daily? This did not happen overnight and I am tired of hearing that Pres. Bush did it all - every elected official in senate and congress share the responsibility of this problem.  If the first bailout did not fix it then why throw more money down the drain with a second bailout.  Will the government bail me out of my financial problems - I think not.

    November 11, 2008 at 1:17 p.m.