All of Tacomax's previous videos = 
-
Comment -
just say moderate then. You vote for whoever you believe is the right man for the job....or you just don't vote which would be in another category...Originally posted by ryanXL977Comment -
but i dont know if i am a moderate
i think everyone should have health care, i think we should cut taxes and defense by at least 80%.
i think abortion is a womens choice and i dotn give a shit if homos marry.
i want stringent rules on wall street and i want the gold standard back and i say **** the fedComment -
Originally posted by therber2I have nothing to hide; also I'm not "curious"... and I'm not going to burn my computer.You must have a criminal mind.
I said nothing about censorship. You assumed that.
Okay to answer your question plain and simple: tremendous shit-talking one's president does a few things to him/her and the country:
1. It makes him unable to perform his job.
2. It makes us look weak to our enemies (not a good thing in a time of war and economic crisis).
3. It makes Americans believe that every single problem in this country is the man's fault.
4. It sets the next president up for failure as well.
Sure some criticism is great; this is America, but come on nothing but shit talk and slander from Americans for years on this guy. Why not just impeach him? You talk about free speech. If polls say he's the worst president ever, and you agree; then impeach him. Write some letters to your congressmen, and vote it in or go throw your shoe at him and do a Boston Tea Party tough guy. I wouldn't say that I feel oppressed as early Americans did during the Revolutionary War so I am not going to take these kind of extreme measures.
What I suggest instead of slander or violence is this:
1. Write letters to those that represent you with your complaints.
2. Try to examine the economy. The deep problems we are having now go way back; before Bush senior. Offer suggestions on how to reverse these problems. Try to enact them yourselves; like OP said you have a voice and a pen.
3. If all else fails, pull out your shoes, and do a Boston Tea Party. Just make sure you burn your computer right away.
Another thing....I am not sure what you mean by NEOCON...spewing rhetoric yet I am an idealogue
. Every loose definition I've heard I would say I am one really not one of those um..."neocons". I have never thought of myself as a liberal nor do I agree with most modern conservatives. 
I have told you I see sense in what everyone says....including you...as much as I hate to admit it, but I don't picks sides. I try to do what I believe is best for the country I live in, and right now that would be trying to explain to you why slander, and shit-talk never gets anyone anywhere. You are digging your own grave.
Again, I have nothing to hide. I would be glad for any authority to examine everything I have said here, and they can go ahead and look through my computer if you feel that you or they must.
Another thing, get out of the house. Most libertarians WILL admit that they are tradional republicans, and fiscal conservatives. I do believe in cutting wasteful services, and I strongly believe in tax-cuts IF we feel this strong need to do "bailouts", tax-cuts would be a great way to do it. I know it sounds repetitive to everyone here, and it is sort of rhetoric, but it is from the heart so what can I do.
Tell me this. Why do you think that a Libertarian is "trash" and a "neo-con"? I haven't heard this one before on CNN or Wikipedia.
As far as "union" and "confeds" that was a reference to how liberal media referred to "red" and "blue" states....a little humor.
Also, yes, an airport would be a port you are correct, sir. I am not sure why that came up here...
Right, after you wrote: Drop me a line, I will throw my shoe in your face and stick my foot up your ass. That’s a criminal act, criminal. Of course being neo-con trash you and your party used to get away with crimes…..welcome to the new age, neo-trash.I have nothing to hide; also I'm not "curious"... and I'm not going to burn my computer. You must have a criminal mind.
You wrote: I believe in America, and I think the last thing it needs is someone like you slandering our nation's leader. So the right to slander, dissent, etc is not to be allowed? Or I can be, but just not by me, so it’s selective? You define that as not be censorship? Pass the bong.I said nothing about censorship. You assumed that.
He was ****ing that up before the shit talking. In fact, that’s what triggered the shit-talking. I don’t want a fair-weather president, if a person cannot handle criticism they should not run for office; it comes with the job.Okay to answer your question plain and simple: tremendous shit-talking one's president does a few things to him/her and the country:
1. It makes him unable to perform his job.
Ok, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh everyone, maybe the rest of the world will think we’re united and we don’t despise our president. Actually I think other people, other countries praise those smart enough to dissent a POS like Bush and his boys. I think it would make other people of other countries know we’re all as stupid as you for ignoring the criminal behavior of our leader.2. It makes us look weak to our enemies (not a good thing in a time of war and economic crisis).
3.No, we all know the fault lies squarely on the electorate idiots like you, after all, you elected him. I don’t blame Bush, esp for the reelection, we all knew what a waste he is and you still voted for him.It makes Americans believe that every single problem in this country is the man's fault.
Hardly, Clinton set up Bush for failure by leaving such a gem, the Dems are in a cycle to always be the winners by leaving roses and inheriting shit; remember the recession after the last Bush?4. It sets the next president up for failure as well.
Maybe he has been that bad for that long. Is there a statute of criticism? If so, why not a statute of incompetence?Sure some criticism is great; this is America, but come on nothing but shit talk and slander from Americans for years on this guy.
We could, hell, we have a huge majority in the House, so it would be a shoe-in (pun intended). The thing is, we watched as the Repulsivicans impeached Clinton for lying to congress and obstruction, conviction failed even if it were a simple majority. Then we watched your criminal’s aide Scooter Libby disclose the name of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, get convicted in a criminal court for the same actions, more counts and then have your criminal in chief commute his jail term, full pardon probably coming by Jan 20. So if we were as pathetic as you and yours, we would do that, but we have shown the Dems are above that and will not be petty and pathetic, even tho what Libby and Bush did were grave and could warrant that, the Dems will be in power for a long time for not being you and yours.Why not just impeach him? You talk about free speech. If polls say he's the worst president ever, and you agree; then impeach him.
Write some letters to your congressmen, and vote it in or go throw your shoe at him and do a Boston Tea Party tough guy.Right, but you want to revoke my right to publicly dissent, so you are the enemy.I did a Boston Tea Party, it happened Nov 7; maybe you missed it.
I wouldn't say that I feel oppressed as early Americans did during the Revolutionary War so I am not going to take these kind of extreme measures.
What I suggest instead of slander or violence is this:
1. Write letters to those that represent you with your complaints.
2. Try to examine the economy. The deep problems we are having now go way back; before Bush senior. Offer suggestions on how to reverse these problems. Try to enact them yourselves; like OP said you have a voice and a pen.
3. If all else fails, pull out your shoes, and do a Boston Tea Party. Just make sure you burn your computer right away.
I don’t have to burn my computer, I don’t threaten people or commit other illicit acts from it. I do write congressmen, I wrote McCain and Kyl a few days ago, they never returned my message. Seems like that runs with neo-cons, hard to address their atrocities.
I do examine the economy. As for deep problems going way back, I agree, they go back to Reagan and his voodoonomics. The debt was under 1T and we have been a debtor nation since the inception of this country. The mess started with the neo-cons, Clinton turned the debt horizontal and you trash turns it vertical.
Neo-con. Break it down: neo = new, con = conservative. Point is, the real conservatives are the Eisenhower types. Hell, even the trash that got us into the Great Depression were fiscal conservatives, they actually lowered the debt, as did Eisenhower. The mantra of the neo-cons is to hammer the debt, starve the poor and middle class and make the rich, filthy. That’s a neo-con. You re an ideologue as far as I see it.Another thing....I am not sure what you mean by NEOCON...spewing rhetoric yet I am an idealogue .
How am I digging my grave? Another threat? Right, you’re not a neo-con, yet you always vote Republican - brilliant.Every loose definition I've heard I would say I am one really not one of those um..."neocons". I have never thought of myself as a liberal nor do I agree with most modern conservatives. I have told you I see sense in what everyone says....including you...as much as I hate to admit it, but I don't picks sides. I try to do what I believe is best for the country I live in, and right now that would be trying to explain to you why slander, and shit-talk never gets anyone anywhere. You are digging your own grave.
I don’t care if they do, I’m just saying how stupid it is to make threats via the computer, or at all, but if you must, do so in private, as you can be a good Republican and lie about it.Again, I have nothing to hide. I would be glad for any authority to examine everything I have said here, and they can go ahead and look through my computer if you feel that you or they must.
Not the ones I listen to, most act as tho they are worlds apart. I do commend you for that honesty.Another thing, get out of the house. Most libertarians WILL admit that they are tradional republicans, and fiscal conservatives.
See, this is the kind of discourse that I like. Altho it’s flawed, it actually covers an issue, rather than correcting spelling, whining about name-calling, making threats or just avoiding as Slacker does.I do believe in cutting wasteful services, and I strongly believe in tax-cuts IF we feel this strong need to do "bailouts", tax-cuts would be a great way to do it. I know it sounds repetitive to everyone here, and it is sort of rhetoric, but it is from the heart so what can I do.
The problem with tax cuts is that they would primarily be a stimulus to the rich, as the rich pay most of the taxes. The problem with a stimulus to the rich is that they have and hold lots of money, which explains why they’re rich. So a tax cut does virtually nothing to stimulate the economy as fully illustrated by Reagan, Bush, Bush. Under Clinton he raised taxes, not to mention GHWB’s large tax increase right before he left office, so this is empirical evidence as to why tax cuts are harmful to the economy and tax increases help the economy. Can you support the opposite with some illustration of a time when tax cuts helped? Will they be in the last few decades? Examples should be contemporary to be relevant. Please, show me how tax cuts have benefited the economy.
I think Libertarians are delusional. To think that the healthcare system can be maintained by churches, as that is what I’ve heard from them, is nuts. They advocate charity and church groups maintaining the healthcare system, is it different? Do they have a platform for this? Dying to hear.Tell me this. Why do you think that a Libertarian is "trash" and a "neo-con"? I haven't heard this one before on CNN or Wikipedia.
As far as "union" and "confeds" that was a reference to how liberal media referred to "red" and "blue" states....a little humor. Also, yes, an airport would be a port you are correct, sir. I am not sure why that came up here...
It came up because another poster (curious) only included seaports when I mentioned ports. I’m still not convinced that you are not him, but I don’t care.
Now, you ended the post really nicely. When you feed me crap about old glory and not calling Bush a criminal, you’re telling me to FO, so FO. But when you discuss the elements as you did at the end of this thread, right on. That’s really what I’m here for, other than keeping up on point spreads. So ignore all this crap except the end where we talk nut/bolts and let’s take it from there. Don’t be a Slacker and, well, you know what I’m saying there.Comment -
Originally posted by ryanXL977
I'm kind of with you, but I think we need to raise taxes, esp on the rich. Rich people and corps from other countries have flocked here for our tax tables and basically non-existent labor laws.
My big thing is healthcare, it should be national and that would ease a HUGE burden on employer/employee relations.
As for defense, we are 4.5% of the world's population and we almost match the rest of the world in military spending not counting the Iraq War, way over 1/2 if you count those funds. That is ridiculous, we need to start by cutting it in half, then go from there. We spend 8 times that of #2, which is Britain, our biggest aly.Comment -
I, and hopefully just about everyone else would say "****" the FED too. I know what you mean Ryan. Labeling yourself in these crazy times is a bad idea. America is....or was a democracy. Until we have equal party representation, strict adherence to constitution, a general feeling of representation of the people; I would say it is unwise to go and label yourself or you'll just have crazy brainwashed idiots ripping you down, and stronger divergence from a strong America. I lean towards libertarianism because I feel that is the party that represents what I just said; however, I have not spent hours looking at what every wacko libertarian has said or done so you can see how it is dangerous to label yourself as anything!
**This is why I butted into this in the first place. Please have respect for one another. It is essential for our nation at this crucial time. If you have strong feelings, release them in the proper manner. This shoe thrower is not our role model. He is one for his own people. Bush will be out very soon (he understands that he is not well liked, and has made some awful decisions). Let it go, and change your mentality towards government. "Shoe throwers" have brought out the worst in America, at least in my opinion.
Comment -
Originally posted by therber2
I answered yours as well. Let's keep it friendly and constructive, I agree. As for berating a crappy leader, you're wrong, the world adores us and we will be more united as a country for it. If we were to lay down after Bush and the 2 previous neo-cons, the world would hate us as citizens rather than just hating the leadership.
Answer mine and we can do what Slacker doesn't have the character to do; engage in dialogue.Comment -
i got no prob with those making over a qrtr mill payin more taxes. but cut the military by 80%, we dont need it. nobody is attacking usComment -
Who is Slacker? Are you referring to me? Or curious? I'm not curious by the way. Just because I am disagreeing with you back there doesn't make me him. I don't know where he is.
Also, very important. You need to stop assuming things.
I did not vote for Bush either election!
Why would you assume that!!!???
Okay now that that is over with. You are right. Yes, many nations are enjoying the United States turning on their leader. They are especially enjoying the downfall in the value of our dollar and economy. I would disagree that unequal taxation is the answer because it is simply unconstitutional; this is my opinion, and please don't refer to me and NEO whatever from now on. I am a traditional Republican, but not currently "republican" it is a party that is fading away because it is blending with the democratic party (that's where you will find your NEO party members). I told you my technical details:
1. Get rid of the FED --hopefully you know that the FED is not a government institution, but it IS one that needs to be eliminated because of their cause of the collapse of the dollar (long term inflation).
2. Quit wasting time arguing with each other.
3. **** the bailouts. The only reason we have to do bailouts now is for appeasement. People are angry, and are blaming the government for economic turmoil (even though many economists saw it coming when the FED was established) Good call Jim Rogers, Sinclair, Ron Paul thank you for your voting track record and public awakening. Every single member of the BOT would like to see Bernanke hang. Blame him, lay off the republican party. We need the republican party so that we have TWO parties and not just ONE (lesser of two evils).
4. CUT WASTEFUL SPENDING
So yes, I do not support an increase in tax. I never said this. I support equal tax cuts if we must do so, and anything we can do to get us out of debt. I say **** the auto companies and bailouts; we are in a PREDICTED depression. Bailouts and tax cuts and shit-talking won't save you. (I say you're digging your own grave --it is a metaphor -- you're digging the nation's grave) Who cares if we're all driving Jap. cars; if it means our dollars recovers it is worth it.
Why do you want to make the world love us at the expense of our downfall?Comment -
let the oil companies bailout the auto makers
get off oil as fast as possible
thats the one thing another pres would have done in 2k, wean us off oil.Comment -
You're right. Many outside attempts have been made, but oil is oil. It is a commodity traded on the floor for years. How about futures contracts? This isn't just oil companies, OPEC, and government.
Oil will be here for a while.
Okay, off the subject of politics for a minute. This is a gambling forum.
Are you all sick of being broke because of your government and oil fiascos. Go look at powershares etn DXO and put some money into that once the open interest for crude oil has dissapated. That is, if DXO is around at that time.
I would expect gas prices to fall buddies. Crude is dropping below break even. Don't think low gas prices are the sign of improving economy. It's the opposite.
So, if crude is so cheap why can't these ****ers bail themselves out. Crude fuels production. PRODUCTION IS LOW AND PRICE IS LOW BECAUSE LARGE INVESTMENT COMPANIES BOUGHT UP A SHITLOAD OF FUTURES!!!
**** bailouts. Learn the economy, and bank off blunder. Don't bitch about it!Comment -
Originally posted by ryanXL977
Agreed, totally. 19 clumbsy terrorists with box cutters doesn't fascilitate the need for a $2B B-2 Bomber or any of the rest of it. 600B per year in military spending is the problem. Another 150B per year fo the Iraq War doesn't help either.Comment -
Yes I think we can all agree with cutting back on the military spending...
A given.
Comment -
Originally posted by therber2
Yea, whatever. Doesn’t matter.Who is Slacker? Are you referring to me? Or curious? I'm not curious by the way. Just because I am disagreeing with you back there doesn't make me him. I don't know where he is.
I did not vote for Bush either election!Also, very important. You need to stop assuming things.
Why would you assume that!!!???
Well then quit being a Slacker (an a-hole member here) and state your position. BTW, it’s super hard to find anyone who will admit to voting for Bush.
Can you blame them? He is one of the most imperialistic *********** ever to serve as president. Not only enjoying, but they respect that we do, after they lost respect for us for electing him.Okay now that that is over with. You are right. Yes, many nations are enjoying the United States turning on their leader.
Yes and no. They can buy our assets more cheaply, but it makes our labor cheaper, which they do not like. They can vacation here for cheap tho. China holds 1.5 trillion of our debt, they are afraid to dump it for fear our dollar will slam and make our labor competitive with theirs.They are especially enjoying the downfall in the value of our dollar and economy.
I would disagree that unequal taxation is the answer because it is simply unconstitutional; this is my opinion, and please don't refer to me and NEO whatever from now on.
Unequal taxation as in different percentages? Or?? Most of the wealth made and held is by the very few percent at the top, so how else can you do it? Remember, money is taxed, not people. If you want to shed taxes, quit earning money. Taxes follow money. Services have to be paid for, so how do you suggest doing this? As for Constitutional or not, don’t take that little doc too seriously, they don’t adhere to it, never really did.
Yep, you’re traditional alright, blame the left as your party takes a sh!t. The major difference is that the Republican Party robs from the government to give to the rich, then they tell the rich to care for the poor as they see fit. The Democrats believe in dispersing assets/wealth more equally. I would love to hear in detail how you claim the Dems and Repubs are blending.I am a traditional Republican, but not currently "republican" it is a party that is fading away because it is blending with the democratic party (that's where you will find your NEO party members). I told you my technical details:
I SEE YOU WROTE THIS: Another thing, get out of the house. Most libertarians WILL admit that they are tradional republicans, and fiscal conservatives. So you are a Libertarian. I don’t get why you are so resistant to admit that. I see Republicans and Libertarians alike being very hesitant about admitting that.
What’s where you will find your neo members? The whole neo-con thing is that since after Eisenhower, the pres who warned us against the Military Industrial Complex, the Republican Party has left it’s fiscal conservatism and become the debt-mongers. The left, for the 1 president in the last 28 years, has been the fiscal-minded president, the other 3 have just spent like no tomorrow, so saying they have blended is ridiculous, if anything, they have traded roles.
Are you talking the federal reserve? The dollar is collapsing due to Republicans since Reagan have overspend in a HUGE way, nothing else. In fact 1 USD at the end or Reagan’s terms would buy 1.28 CAD, at the end of Clinton’s terms 1 USD would buy 1.55 CAD. The USD went below the CAD a year back, but since the crash of the market the USD has risen due to the purchase of US binds. As soon as the market recovers people will sell bonds and reinvest, causing the USD to crash again.1. Get rid of the FED --hopefully you know that the FED is not a government institution, but it IS one that needs to be eliminated because of their cause of the collapse of the dollar (long term inflation).
Anyway, so what do you replace the FED with then? You can’t have ½ solution.
OK, just let me pick the president and all congress members and you have a deal. Oh, you don’t like that? Then we have to argue.2. Quit wasting time arguing with each other.
Yea, you’re a Republican alright. Not that it matters, but you’re a disgruntled Republican, AKA Libertarian. Classic. If we don’t bailout, we will be in a depression. See, my Libertarian friend, you have to have an answer, not just a kicking out of the problem, you have to have the rest of the puzzle filled and that’s the downfall of the Libertarians. I say **** the banks, have the gov lend or guarantee the loans and bailout manufacturing, as our GDP is our best asset.3. **** the bailouts. The only reason we have to do bailouts now is for appeasement. People are angry, and are blaming the government for economic turmoil (even though many economists saw it coming when the FED was established) Good call Jim Rogers, Sinclair, Ron Paul thank you for your voting track record and public awakening. Every single member of the BOT would like to see Bernanke hang. Blame him, lay off the republican party. We need the republican party so that we have TWO parties and not just ONE (lesser of two evils).
You have to define wasteful spending. Military spending is wasteful if it is above what is needed. We should spend endlessly on medical care and education, as those are what makes a nation strong.4. CUT WASTEFUL SPENDING
So yes, I do not support an increase in tax. I never said this. I support equal tax cuts if we must do so, and anything we can do to get us out of debt.
As of 2001, the top 20% of Americans hold 85% of the total wealth, and the same 20% holds 91% of all financial wealth, so how can you advocate that the holders of the other 9% of the financial wealth, the bottom 80%, should carry any real tax burden? This, “fair” opinion is debunk by way of wealth data. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
And with Bush in since 2001, I wonder which way that statistic has gone?
I say **** the auto companies and bailouts; we are in a PREDICTED depression. Bailouts and tax cuts and shit-talking won't save you. (I say you're digging your own grave --it is a metaphor -- you're digging the nation's grave) Who cares if we're all driving Jap. cars; if it means our dollars recovers it is worth it.
So fvck the lower 80% and their jobs, fvck America’s shrinking manufacturing base? And you whine about arguing and want cohesion for America while shoving a pipe bomb up its ass? I don’t believe you have the data, just Roan Paul Revolution brainwashing.
Why do you want to make the world love us at the expense of our downfall?
Hey, your party is responsible for virtually all of the national debt, don’t look toward me.
________________________________________ ______________
Any comment on the impeachment remarks?
1) We could, hell, we have a huge majority in the House, so it would be a shoe-in (pun intended). The thing is, we watched as the Repulsivicans impeached Clinton for lying to congress and obstruction, conviction failed even if it were a simple majority. Then we watched your criminal’s aide Scooter Libby disclose the name of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, get convicted in a criminal court for the same actions, more counts and then have your criminal in chief commute his jail term, full pardon probably coming by Jan 20. So if we were as pathetic as you and yours, we would do that, but we have shown the Dems are above that and will not be petty and pathetic, even tho what Libby and Bush did were grave and could warrant that, the Dems will be in power for a long time for not being you and yours.
2) Right, but you want to revoke my right to publicly dissent, so you are the enemy.
3) I don’t have to burn my computer, I don’t threaten people or commit other illicit acts from it. I do write congressmen, I wrote McCain and Kyl a few days ago, they never returned my message. Seems like that runs with neo-cons, hard to address their atrocities.
I do examine the economy. As for deep problems going way back, I agree, they go back to Reagan and his voodoonomics. The debt was under 1T and we have been a debtor nation since the inception of this country. The mess started with the neo-cons, Clinton turned the debt horizontal and you trash turns it vertical.
4) The problem with tax cuts is that they would primarily be a stimulus to the rich, as the rich pay most of the taxes. The problem with a stimulus to the rich is that they have and hold lots of money, which explains why they’re rich. So a tax cut does virtually nothing to stimulate the economy as fully illustrated by Reagan, Bush, Bush. Under Clinton he raised taxes, not to mention GHWB’s large tax increase right before he left office, so this is empirical evidence as to why tax cuts are harmful to the economy and tax increases help the economy. Can you support the opposite with some illustration of a time when tax cuts helped? Will they be in the last few decades? Examples should be contemporary to be relevant. Please, show me how tax cuts have benefited the economy.
5) I think Libertarians are delusional. To think that the healthcare system can be maintained by churches, as that is what I’ve heard from them, is nuts. They advocate charity and church groups maintaining the healthcare system, is it different? Do they have a platform for this? Dying to hear.Comment -
How to deal with Depression
I'll address all of the issues you have with my statements:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Well then quit being a Slacker (an a-hole member here) and state your position. BTW, it’s super hard to find anyone who will admit to voting for Bush."
I neither voted Republican for either of Bush's terms nor did I vote Republican this election. I voted independent. Yes, it makes sense that you would think people wouldn't like to admit that they voted Bush, but you have no proof on me
. I did a write in for Ron Paul this year and voted independent the previous years before that I wasn't old enough to vote. I think Ron Paul is an excellent man for the job at this time. Ron Paul is a libertarian that ran as a Republican in the primaries to increase his odds, and most importantly to re-establish traditional conservative values. He's no NEO con. He was a party outcast. Maybe you want to call him a Neo-con. I don't care. I believe neo-con, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, and even maybe libertarian and moderate are all loose terms. I also liked Gravel quite a bit, but voted Ron Paul instead. So, I vote for who ever I believe follows the values of our founding fathers regardless of their political party affiliation. If you must know I would currently feel most comfortable labeling myself Libertarian, fine.
So there's my position, what is yours?
These are the only elections I have been old enough to vote in. So sorry about repubs ****ing things up before...don't blame me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you blame them? He is one of the most imperialistic *********** ever to serve as president. Not only enjoying, but they respect that we do, after they lost respect for us for electing him."
Well I think that "they" are smart enough to see that our electoral process is slightly flawed, and Bush won by small margins (hence the recounts). But if "they" are not then I would agree; there would probably be respect for "shoe-throwing".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes and no. They can buy our assets more cheaply, but it makes our labor cheaper, which they do not like. They can vacation here for cheap tho. China holds 1.5 trillion of our debt, they are afraid to dump it for fear our dollar will slam and make our labor competitive with theirs."
I would say vacationing here is irrelevent first of all. Second, yes they will be enjoying cheap assets. Expect domestic open interest in crude oil for example (as an asset or cheap comodity) to diminish very soon, and international banks will buy up a whole lot of contracts. Well then that means that the dollar goes up quite a bit so the job issue also become irrelevent. Yes, I still feel that most foreign nations are quite enjoying our financial bluders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Unequal taxation as in different percentages? Or?? Most of the wealth made and held is by the very few percent at the top, so how else can you do it? Remember, money is taxed, not people. If you want to shed taxes, quit earning money. [terrible reason for unequal taxation-wow] Taxes follow money. Services have to be paid for, so how do you suggest doing this? As for Constitutional or not, don’t take that little doc too seriously, they don’t adhere to it, never really did."
Sorry, yes I believe in free-market with little government regulation, low and equal taxation (percentage-wise yes). Unequal taxation is just another form of bailout, and I don't believe it follows our constitution. Question for you: are you an American? If so, why don't want to follow the constitution? If you aren't American disregard this question. Anyone else can answer this too; I'm curious (and I mean the word "curious" not that guy: curious
).
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yep, you’re traditional alright, blame the left as your party takes a sh!t. The major difference is that the Republican Party robs from the government to give to the rich, then they tell the rich to care for the poor as they see fit."
Again, I'm not Republican. Never have been at least in my life;
[could you give me some examples of this happening from 1800 or earlier until now?] I'm not disagreeing with you here on this; I just believe that most of this "robbing to give to rich" theory you are referring to would be a more current trait of the "Republican party"
----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Democrats believe in dispersing assets/wealth more equally. I would love to hear in detail how you claim the Dems and Repubs are blending."
This is actually a Socialist idea to ammend things. Traditional conservatives would have followed the constitution and free market to avoid having to do this in the first place. Neither Dems or GOP follow these ideals.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I SEE YOU WROTE THIS: Another thing, get out of the house. Most libertarians WILL admit that they are tradional republicans, and fiscal conservatives."
"So you are a Libertarian. I don’t get why you are so resistant to admit that. I see Republicans and Libertarians alike being very hesitant about admitting that."
"the Republican Party has left it’s fiscal conservatism and become the debt-mongers. The left, for the 1 president in the last 28 years, has been the fiscal-minded president, the other 3 have just spent like no tomorrow, so saying they have blended is ridiculous, if anything, they have traded roles."
If you are referring to Clinton; yes I support him in that aspect, and not the other three, but it STILL does not affiliate me with a party.
Well if you are still confused about why anyone in their right minds wants to admit their Party affiliation, it is because the party traits are hard to define (for example, "do you mean you are a Jacksonian Demo or a modern democrat"...."do you mean you are a fiscally conservative Republican or a modern Republican". Get it?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking the federal reserve? The dollar is collapsing due to Republicans since Reagan have overspend in a HUGE way, nothing else. In fact 1 USD at the end or Reagan’s terms would buy 1.28 CAD, at the end of Clinton’s terms 1 USD would buy 1.55 CAD. The USD went below the CAD a year back, but since the crash of the market the USD has risen due to the purchase of US binds. As soon as the market recovers people will sell bonds and reinvest, causing the USD to crash again.
Anyway, so what do you replace the FED with then? You can’t have ½ solution.
Yes the Federal Reserve, a psuedo-gov. organization. They should be eliminated completely. The Fed and anyone who has support the printing of more dollars are the ones responsible for the collapse of the USD and a huge increase in national debt. People can short their bonds in the market. People can encourage government to reduce our debt eliminating this institution and other that are continuously blowing away dollars. People can encourage their government to switch to a sound currency or invest in assets themselves.
The dollar is worthless. Getting rid of the fed, and pulling back troops and military spending are the first steps in recovering the US (in the long run). Bailouts are short term resolutions that will, as you said be followed with another collapse in the USD and US economy. It is a gigantic mess, and it will take years to recover. If you are asking me for a short term resolution to civil issues. I have no idea. Fend for yourselves. That is my best advice, take it or leave it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"OK, just let me pick the president and all congress members and you have a deal. Oh, you don’t like that? Then we have to argue."
In a civil manner if you don't mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Yea, you’re a Republican alright. Not that it matters, but you’re a disgruntled Republican, AKA Libertarian. Classic. If we don’t bailout, we will be in a depression. See, my Libertarian friend, you have to have an answer, not just a kicking out of the problem, you have to have the rest of the puzzle filled and that’s the downfall of the Libertarians. I say **** the banks, have the gov lend or guarantee the loans and bailout manufacturing, as our GDP is our best asset."
No a Republican is not a Libertarian. Perhaps there are some overlaps, and perhaps there are some overlaps in every other party as well.
And yeah I'm disgruntled for sure; aren't we all 
. You perhaps most of all; so it seems.
No I just wouldn't intervene. In relatively recent history haven't we seen that government officials really aren't economists, and that intervention usually doesn't work in the long run?
I would loan responsible manufacturers a bailout, but it is just way to hard for government to determine who that would be. Do you know? Check the sec and see who has bought up bad futures contracts in commodities they use maybe, and let them go under? Let the responsible ones get some? I don't know. I say let free market just work itself out and let government deal with the nasty debt they've created, and just stop creating more debt because even the best economists can't predict what would happen. Bailouts = gov. gambling with the people's money. Use that money for (proportionately equal tax cuts instead or paying off debt).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"You have to define wasteful spending. Military spending is wasteful if it is above what is needed. [correct!] We should spend endlessly [incorrect] on medical care and education, as those are what makes a nation strong."
The Government needs to focus on a balanced budget. This would mean (at this current time) very little spending and promotion of free market so that the Gov. can get the money (tax) to pay off debt.
So where does the Government spend less? This is difficult to answer, but I would start as I said before elimination of the FED. and complete elimination or reduction in spending many real Federal Dept.'s. (Education, Commerce, Homeland Security, Housing, Loans).
[Dept. of Health -- I am not sure about. This is obviously something worth spending money on]. My point is this: These dept. are costing us way to much to run, and can be handled more efficiently, or could just be eliminated. This is the government's job! The government should promote free market by demonstrating non-intervention, and not doing these BS bailouts which will just fail, and cause people to be skitish and reluctant to give out loans, or spend their money! Government, please stop ****in around with the economy. Deal with what you know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So yes, I do not support an increase in tax. I never said this. I support equal tax cuts if we must do so, and anything we can do to get us out of debt.
"As of 2001, the top 20% of Americans hold 85% of the total wealth, and the same 20% holds 91% of all financial wealth, so how can you advocate that the holders of the other 9% of the financial wealth, the bottom 80%, should carry any real tax burden? This, “fair” opinion is debunk by way of wealth data. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
And with Bush in since 2001, I wonder which way that statistic has gone?"
Sorry if I was unclear, yes I would advocate proportionally equal taxing, and proportionally equal tax cuts. I don't believe in Unions or organizations supporting the little guy and "stickin" it to the man. I don't buy it, and it is unfair to those who have worked their way to the top. Let's leave it up to these upper class citizens to socialize. Ex. Warren Buffetts $40 Billion donation to the Gates Foundation. That is free market.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, your party is responsible for virtually all of the national debt, don’t look toward me.
Again, I'm not Republican, but does this mean you are democratic?
Could you clarify what side you are on?
________________________________________ ______________
Any comment on the impeachment remarks?
1) We could, hell, we have a huge majority in the House, so it would be a shoe-in (pun intended). The thing is, we watched as the Repulsivicans impeached Clinton for lying to congress and obstruction, conviction failed even if it were a simple majority. Then we watched your criminal’s aide Scooter Libby disclose the name of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, get convicted in a criminal court for the same actions, more counts and then have your criminal in chief commute his jail term, full pardon probably coming by Jan 20. So if we were as pathetic as you and yours, we would do that, but we have shown the Dems are above that and will not be petty and pathetic, even tho what Libby and Bush did were grave and could warrant that, the Dems will be in power for a long time for not being you and yours.
**Dude just impeach him; it's your right. I'd rather see that than complaining and nothing being done**
So you are demo? Also you refer to these people as mine: welp buddy, I didn't vote Bush I'm as pissed as you.
2) Right, but you want to revoke my right to publicly dissent, so you are the enemy.
You are supporting, a guy who threw a shoe at the President...
I'm disagreeing, that is my public dissent. You know, I was the first one on the board with the balls to go against the general concensus here, and I'm getting pounded by you for that. Just let me express my opinion too. I'm not the enemy for that you .....
3) I don’t have to burn my computer, I don’t threaten people or commit other illicit acts from it. I do write congressmen, I wrote McCain and Kyl a few days ago, they never returned my message. Seems like that runs with neo-cons, hard to address their atrocities.
I do examine the economy. As for deep problems going way back, I agree, they go back to Reagan and his voodoonomics. The debt was under 1T and we have been a debtor nation since the inception of this country. The mess started with the neo-cons, Clinton turned the debt horizontal and you trash turns it vertical.
**Okay then, how do you save America once Obama get's in? You look backwards and blame Republicans, but what would you do to save you own ass, and more importantly to save your childrens little butts? And **** you for calling me trash; I'm not the one who wanted war, I'm not the one who wanted the Federal Reserve, I cringe every time I see government spend a dollar. So **** you.
4) The problem with tax cuts is that they would primarily be a stimulus to the rich, as the rich pay most of the taxes. The problem with a stimulus to the rich is that they have and hold lots of money, which explains why they’re rich. So a tax cut does virtually nothing to stimulate the economy as fully illustrated by Reagan, Bush, Bush. Under Clinton he raised taxes, not to mention GHWB’s large tax increase right before he left office, so this is empirical evidence as to why tax cuts are harmful to the economy and tax increases help the economy. Can you support the opposite with some illustration of a time when tax cuts helped? Will they be in the last few decades? Examples should be contemporary to be relevant. Please, show me how tax cuts have benefited the economy.
There are no contemporary examples. I told you what the first priority should be: government balancing budget, and cutting spending. The last priority should be any sort of tax or free market adjustment by the government.
5) I think Libertarians are delusional. To think that the healthcare system can be maintained by churches, as that is what I’ve heard from them, is nuts. They advocate charity and church groups maintaining the healthcare system, is it different? Do they have a platform for this? Dying to hear.[/quote]
I don't know which Lib. you refer to. I don't think that healthcare should be maintained by churches. Honestly, I don't know how to change health care other than freeing up spending in other areas and making it universally more affordable. Churches though? No. .... No.
No platform that I've heard of, or care to hear about...sorry.
I'd like to hear a concise plan you would have if you were Obama in the new term and Bush finishing his term: Let's hear it. Maybe you could just say what you agree with or disagree and why. Go ahead.
Comment
