Romney again flip flopping on the Health Plan

[chunkymonster]

To level set my POV, I am a Constitutional republican and believe that the American Constitution is the greatest document ever written for citizen based self-governance.

The tea party does nothing but radicalize already extremely conservative policies.

Well, first thing is, the Tea Party is not part of the Republican Party. This misconception stems form the fact that the Tea Party has not organized itself as a national party, and because of it's platform it is by default associated with the Republican Party. Ultimately, it is a unique and distinct group with it's own political identity. As a result, I understand the perception that the Tea Party can be seen as radical. But as a Constitution and republic loving American, how can anyone but marxists or socialists call the following platform radical...

Tea Party Platform: 1) Eliminate Excessive Taxes, 2) Eliminate the National Debt, 3) Eliminate Deficit Spending, 4) Protect Free Markets, 5) Abide by the Constitution, 6) promote Civil Responsibility, 7) Reduce the Size of Government, 8) Believe in the People, 9) Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics, 10) Maintain Local Independence

Please note that I am not calling you marxist or socialist, but if we want the same thing for America, why do we argue over a matter of degrees; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I understand that people fell in love with them because they were different and gave them another option but when you look at what their body of work consists it is almost depressing that they represent the government of the greatest country in the history of humanity. I would take a John McCain over any of those guys any day of the week. For that matter I would take John McCain over Romney 10 out of 10 times. McCain has a backbone and was an upstanding person, Romney is a chameleon.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Romney is not the "ideal" candidate, but he is far better than the standing democrat alternative. After his speech before the NAACP, I have gained a little more respect for Romney and consider him a person of character and principle. McCain's voting record proves that he is a Big Government Republican and not interested in changing the status-quo. Agree or not, but the fact is Mitt Romney does not suffer from credibility issues, McCain and Obama do. The democrat talking points to attack Romney's credibility have been proven to be blatant lies.

Enough with the BS social democracy stuff, name the things that Obama is going to do in his 2nd term to achieve this. Also tell me what Romney is going to do that will be any better. Its easy to say nonsense like that, but its much harder to actually prove it.

Agree to disagree but Obama is changing America from a republic to a social democracy. In his first term, Obama has continued the failed Bush foreign policies, passed Dodd-Frank, continued Keynesian economic policies, promotes welfare capitalism, holds public labor unions above private sector employees, has enacted policies that enable State ownership of businesses (i.e.; the GM bailout, Health Care, the Energy Industry), promotes universal access to social services, and exploits capitalism to promote "fair" and "equitable" wealth redistribution.

Sadly, with only 115 days left to Election Day, Obama has yet to articulate his 2nd term platform, but based on various articles and his own speeches, we can be assured of a continuation of policies from his 1st term plus; a significant raising of taxes, entrenchment of the ACA, pass cap-and-trade, promote the Senate passing of the UN Small Arms treaty, significant climate change legislation, and more stimulus packages. So, with all said, I expect Obama's 2nd term to continue the fundamental transformation of our republic into a social democracy through executive fiat, circumvention of Congress, and more policies contrary to the will of the electorate.

Will Romney do better? The only way to know for sure is elect him. But based on his speeches, platform, and vision for America, I say that Romney will be better for America than Obama. Overall, I think the system is too far gone for any one President to fix. It has been over 100 years since the socialists have entrenched themselves into American politics and it has taken them this long to put America in the sad state it is today, it will take just as long to for the People to elect the right-minded representatives to return to small government and true republicanism.

Yet, he does not call himself a socialist...a requirement on my own book.

C'mon? Really?! I don't need a duck to quack to know it's a duck. Obama does not need to say he's a socialist, his policies and actions have proven he is.

Romney has stated that if you are not looking for a candidate who changes his own views, he is not the man you should vote for. Does that meal all republicans are 'flip-floppers'? No, that is a logical fallacy. If you do not want Romney or do not like his political, social, and/or religious views...don;'t vote for him. Simple as that. If there is something you knwo he has that will help us in our time of need...put him in office.

One thing both Obama and Romney agree on is their differing visions for America. And, I agree with you dogman, vote for who's vision better fits with your world view of America. Hopefully, that is a world vision of smaller government, reduce deficits, less taxes, and a balanced budget. But at the very least, I just hope people get and out vote.

 

[dogman_1234]

This is why the banks own your ass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE5Sw8qJ-g0&feature=player_embedded

I thought we owned their asses...thanks to Obama.

 

[musical marv]

I thought we owned their asses...thanks to Obama.

Why is everything blamed on Obama and not the asshole Bush who messed us up in this crisis?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Tired of hollywood scripts?
Then dont watch the MSM or Obamas current campaign strategy.
The evil rich, the evil corporations.
Why, hes so cold, he puts his dog on the roof of his car.
Hes so out of touch, he has an elevator for hid car.
He enjoys firing people.
His wife is worthless.
He believes in some weird God stuff.
etc etc etc

A true Hollywood script if there ever was one.
Now, Obama needs to tell his story, not as was said, not as was promised, not to have any connection with today, and what is happening out here in the real world.
Hes a uniter.
He isnt like previous candidates, hes above all the trash.
He asks for a kinder gentler approach.
Unemployment will go down.
He wont spike the ball when it comes to Bin Laden.
The ACA will be cheaper than what we currently have, woeful as it is.
The promise was only 1/3 of reality in costs thus far, according to to those whos job it is, the same who said we will lose our credit rating, which we were also told that wouldnt happen.
Those who get the most out of the ACA have yet had to pay, and will eventually find its costs, the jury thus is not in yet.

The states right vs the Federal mandate, well, theres been a few governors recalled, all but one successfully, not so with the federal hierarchy, and is why its a tax, not a penalty, and should be plainly seen, and if the supreme court calls something by law as they prescribe, someone else may feel different about it, but dont break the law, or guess what?
You will be penalized, again, the order of things.
Its our structure of things, and bad for us, as we have elected officials muddying the waters of such things, and playing on peoples ignorance of such things, by way of sexism, racism and class warfare

 

[dogman_1234]

Why is everything blamed on Obama and not the asshole Bush who messed us up in this crisis?

Why is every time an induvidual mentions his name, that person is assumed to be attacking Obama?

My statement was not an attack, rather a joke at the banking industry itself, (and not at Obama).
I think Obama should have used the money for tax relief on manufacturing...like GM? The banks could have sold their loans to more 'local' more secure thrift institutes for a percent. That would get rid of the big guys, and let the individual consolidate with a smaller thrift institute.

 

[musical marv]

Why is every time an induvidual mentions his name, that person is assumed to be attacking Obama?

My statement was not an attack, rather a joke at the banking industry itself, (and not at Obama).
I think Obama should have used the money for tax relief on manufacturing...like GM? The banks could have sold their loans to more 'local' more secure thrift institutes for a percent. That would get rid of the big guys, and let the individual consolidate with a smaller thrift institut e.

I understand now.

 

[johnsonma]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Romney is not the "ideal" candidate, but he is far better than the standing democrat alternative. After his speech before the NAACP, I have gained a little more respect for Romney and consider him a person of character and principle. McCain's voting record proves that he is a Big Government Republican and not interested in changing the status-quo. Agree or not, but the fact is Mitt Romney does not suffer from credibility issues, McCain and Obama do. The democrat talking points to attack Romney's credibility have been proven to be blatant lies.

All you have to do to tarnish Romeny's credibility is look at his comments before he decided to run for president, then while running for the republican nomination, then while running for the actual presidential race. He has continually morphed his views to accomplish his goals. This is why I call him a chameleon, he changes to suit his current environment. Maybe he will stick with his latest stances (republican hallmark stances) and turn out to be an alright president, but I wouldn't put money on someone who can change his views so easily. You need to keep an open mind but he is in a league of himself.

Agree to disagree but Obama is changing America from a republic to a social democracy. In his first term, Obama has continued the failed Bush foreign policies, passed Dodd-Frank, continued Keynesian economic policies, promotes welfare capitalism, holds public labor unions above private sector employees, has enacted policies that enable State ownership of businesses (i.e.; the GM bailout, Health Care, the Energy Industry), promotes universal access to social services, and exploits capitalism to promote "fair" and "equitable" wealth redistribution.

Continued failed bush foreign polices? Please provide some examples of this. Universal access to social services existed before Obama(education). Some argue that keynesian economic policies deviate from a standard social democracy as well. Unrestrained capitalism will devour itself, we have history to thank for teaching that lesson.

On a side note what do you have against the American version of welfare capitalism? Weren't conservatives up in arms with the healthcare law saying it would cause businesses to drop coverage? If your against welfare capitalism isn't that what you want?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I was born in Indonesia

 

[chunkymonster]

All you have to do to tarnish Romeny's credibility is look at his comments before he decided to run for president, then while running for the republican nomination, then while running for the actual presidential race. He has continually morphed his views to accomplish his goals. This is why I call him a chameleon, he changes to suit his current environment. Maybe he will stick with his latest stances (republican hallmark stances) and turn out to be an alright president, but I wouldn't put money on someone who can change his views so easily. You need to keep an open mind but he is in a league of himself.

I know and accept that Romney change his positions before he clinched the repulbican nomination.

Given the state of the economy and given the choices in this election, I will gladly take my chances with a candidate who changes his mind and opinion as he moves forward in a campaign over a standing President running for re-election that has flat-out lied about or failed to deliver on almost everything he campaigned on.

Romney may be a chameleon but Obama is a stone cold hypocrite and bald faced liar.

Continued failed bush foreign polices? Please provide some examples of this.

It has been reported by the mainstream media that Obama continued along the same lines of the Bush foreign policy. Candidate Obama campaigned against the Bush foreign policy but ended up adopting much of the same strategy and doctrines, like; the preemptive drone strikes, selective unilateralism as proven by the raid to get Osama Bin-Laden and focus on Afghanistan, treatment of terrorists and continuing of Guantanamo Bay, to name a few.

Please understand, it is not whether I agree or disagree with the Bush/Obama foreign policy that I take issue with; personally, I believe that where the Obama foreign policy does well there has been great success, but where the Obama foreign policy has failed, it has failed miserably. Specifically, my issue is that Candidate Obama said he would do one thing but it has been President Obama that has done another thing and utterly failed to deliver on the platform he campaigned on.

Universal access to social services existed before Obama(education).

Please note that I did not support the Bush policy of "No Child Left Behind" so save any comments about that. Of course access social service existed before Obama, it doesn't make them any more or less right or better for the country. Read up on which political party has historically voted universal access to social services into law; hint, think New Deal.

Using education as an example, I have spoken to several teachers and NEA representatives that would love the see the DoE dismantled and block grants given to the States or federal taxes returned to the States so the States can run their educational system based specific and localized needs. Teacher and Administrators want parental partnerships within the community they teach. Teaching as an industry wants more say in the curriculum, requirements, and standards as opposed to federally mandated funding and testing. This same concept applies when it comes to universal access of social services; Obama big government policy has enlarged the welfare roles to historical highs and has created new regulations to control how States implement welfare; and please, do not try to sell the recent Clinton era welfare regulation change by Obama as giving the States more freedom. The key point here is that Obama policy has made government larger, more intrusive, and further steered American away from the republic and into becoming a social democracy.

Some argue that keynesian economic policies deviate from a standard social democracy as well. Unrestrained capitalism will devour itself, we have history to thank for teaching that lesson.

I totally agree that Keynesian economic policies used by the democrat controlled congress over the past 90+ years have completely deviated from the theory and template. Even Keynes admitted that a country can not sustain deficit spending, that spending cuts are necessary until the finances are in the black, then resume deficit spending. The Democrat controlled congress has failed at applying sustainable economic policy. Obama has failed to provide the leadership necessary to bring the opposing sides together to even pass a budget. Obama has failed to influence the Senate run by Democrat Harry Reid to even bring a budget to a vote. As a matter of fact, the Federal government, with two branches controlled by Democrats, has failed to pass a budget in over THREE YEARS! It just may be that unrestrained capitalism does devour itself, but that appears to be less painful than not passing a federal budget in over three years while at the same time increasing deficit spending and fundamentally transforming America into a social democracy.

Incidentally, the only time since the 1920's that America had a budget surplus was when Clinton was President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. That speaks volumes about 90+ years of largely democratic controlled economic policy. Heck, the last time there was a balanced budget and America's national debt was paid in full was in 1835 under Andrew Jackson!

On a side note what do you have against the American version of welfare capitalism?

I have nothing against the American version of corporate welfare, to an extent. When government PARTNERS with private industry to create products and services that ultimately find a place in the consumer market, (like the internet, commercial airlines, railroads, plexi-glass) I am all for corporate welfare. However, when corporate welfare comes in the form of tax payer subsidized government take overs of private businesses, like Obama has done with with GM, the energy industry, and health care, I have a real issue. Again, exploiting capitalism to move private business and industry under State control is a hallmark and primary economic weapon of a social democracy. There is a HUGE difference between government/private business partnerships to implement market controls and provide tax subsidies compared to out right government take over of private business and industry.

Weren't conservatives up in arms with the healthcare law saying it would cause businesses to drop coverage? If your against welfare capitalism isn't that what you want?

First, implying that anyone would want people to be without adequate health care coverage is just intellectually dishonest.

If government takes over health care and brings it under government control, that means that there is less space in the free market for private businesses to sell or provide health care coverage. To imply that government can take control of health care and not put smaller privately owned companies out of business is just naive. So, it stands to reason that some companies, as government takes control of the health care industry, would lose their health care provider. Then those companies would either have to drop coverage altogether and have employees go on the government program, or be forced to go with the government approved privately owned health care provider. Either way, it lose-lose for the small business and employee, as the cost of health care will inevitable increase. Now, before anyone spouts the Obama rhetoric about health care costs coming down as a result of fully implementing the ACA, please refer to the CBO estimates showing that the original cost of the ACA as sold by Obama has increased threefold, from $900 Billion to $1.2 Trillion over 10 years; which is another Obama lie and example of fundamentally transforming America from a republic to a social democracy.

 

[riser]

Daaang. Smack em with a wet trout.

 

[johnsonma]

I know and accept that Romney change his positions before he clinched the repulbican nomination.

Given the state of the economy and given the choices in this election, I will gladly take my chances with a candidate who changes his mind and opinion as he moves forward in a campaign over a standing President running for re-election that has flat-out lied about or failed to deliver on almost everything he campaigned on.

Romney may be a chameleon but Obama is a stone cold hypocrite and bald faced liar.

That is the exact opposite trait of someone you want to be president. He will be so prone to changing his mind based on what other people tell him that any policies he puts in place will never be given time to reach their final results. Sometimes its gets worse before it gets better and when you have a president such as Romney in the Office he will not have the strength of character to realize this. Not to mention that he is too busy trying to please the far right to do what is right.

Have you actually researched what Obama said he would do during his campaign cycle to what he did while in office? Its impressive the amount he was able to do with 2 years of unprecedented obstructionism from the HOR.

It has been reported by the mainstream media that Obama continued along the same lines of the Bush foreign policy. Candidate Obama campaigned against the Bush foreign policy but ended up adopting much of the same strategy and doctrines, like; the preemptive drone strikes, selective unilateralism as proven by the raid to get Osama Bin-Laden and focus on Afghanistan, treatment of terrorists and continuing of Guantanamo Bay, to name a few.

Please understand, it is not whether I agree or disagree with the Bush/Obama foreign policy that I take issue with; personally, I believe that where the Obama foreign policy does well there has been great success, but where the Obama foreign policy has failed, it has failed miserably. Specifically, my issue is that Candidate Obama said he would do one thing but it has been President Obama that has done another thing and utterly failed to deliver on the platform he campaigned on.

He said he would end two wars, and guess what? He ended one and is in the process of ending another. He even had the presence of mind to realize that even with the draw down in troops, covert operations were still needed. The example of the drone strike in Pakistan is an outlier and it is clouding your view of his work with NATO and the UN. Look to Iran and the Arab Spring uprisings to get the real picture of his work within the global community. The entire time he campaigned he said he would increase our forces in Afghanistan to quickly end the war. He ended the kinds of torture that had become commonplace under Bush and yet he has continued poor treatment of terrorists?

Please note that I did not support the Bush policy of "No Child Left Behind" so save any comments about that. Of course access social service existed before Obama, it doesn't make them any more or less right or better for the country. Read up on which political party has historically voted universal access to social services into law; hint, think New Deal.

Using education as an example, I have spoken to several teachers and NEA representatives that would love the see the DoE dismantled and block grants given to the States or federal taxes returned to the States so the States can run their educational system based specific and localized needs. Teacher and Administrators want parental partnerships within the community they teach. Teaching as an industry wants more say in the curriculum, requirements, and standards as opposed to federally mandated funding and testing. This same concept applies when it comes to universal access of social services; Obama big government policy has enlarged the welfare roles to historical highs and has created new regulations to control how States implement welfare; and please, do not try to sell the recent Clinton era welfare regulation change by Obama as giving the States more freedom. The key point here is that Obama policy has made government larger, more intrusive, and further steered American away from the republic and into becoming a social democracy.

Continuing to say the same thing isn't going to make it true. Standards, requirements, and testing are all trademarks of NCLB and I completely agree that curriculum needs to be based on the child and not on national standards. Luckily with the increase in technology to bring even more specific and enriched content to children this is becoming much more feasible even in remote school districts.

Your overstating the welfare change as the sharp decline in the economy always leads to the growth of welfare. I have a hard time finding any evidence that Obama increase welfare roles to "historical highs" unless you are looking purely at a numbers perspective, which can be explained by the recession.


I totally agree that Keynesian economic policies used by the democrat controlled congress over the past 90+ years have completely deviated from the theory and template. Even Keynes admitted that a country can not sustain deficit spending, that spending cuts are necessary until the finances are in the black, then resume deficit spending. The Democrat controlled congress has failed at applying sustainable economic policy. Obama has failed to provide the leadership necessary to bring the opposing sides together to even pass a budget. Obama has failed to influence the Senate run by Democrat Harry Reid to even bring a budget to a vote. As a matter of fact, the Federal government, with two branches controlled by Democrats, has failed to pass a budget in over THREE YEARS! It just may be that unrestrained capitalism does devour itself, but that appears to be less painful than not passing a federal budget in over three years while at the same time increasing deficit spending and fundamentally transforming America into a social democracy.

Again you repeat the social democracy rhetoric.....that is consistent of you at least. You do know that congress has had republican majorities during certain times over those 90+ years right? You also know that congress is suppose to pass the budget, not the president? You also know that Republicans have controlled the HOR for the last two years also, right?

Incidentally, the only time since the 1920's that America had a budget surplus was when Clinton was President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. That speaks volumes about 90+ years of largely democratic controlled economic policy. Heck, the last time there was a balanced budget and America's national debt was paid in full was in 1835 under Andrew Jackson!

I have nothing against the American version of corporate welfare, to an extent. When government PARTNERS with private industry to create products and services that ultimately find a place in the consumer market, (like the internet, commercial airlines, railroads, plexi-glass) I am all for corporate welfare. However, when corporate welfare comes in the form of tax payer subsidized government take overs of private businesses, like Obama has done with with GM, the energy industry, and health care, I have a real issue. Again, exploiting capitalism to move private business and industry under State control is a hallmark and primary economic weapon of a social democracy. There is a HUGE difference between government/private business partnerships to implement market controls and provide tax subsidies compared to out right government take over of private business and industry.

Right...not sure were talking about the same corporate welfare. Government investment in alternative energy is not a "take over", it is merely a push for growth in that market, just like any other investment. The current administration also has a plan to sell its current stake in GM but it cannot be reckless about it as a swing of that much stock in any company can causes some serious issues. Its not like the government privatized the auto industry so your really just making something out of nothing on this issue. Lastly the healthcare legislation does not provide a universal health care system. Its more of a hybrid with the private option and then the already standing public business model. If you seriously think any of these options constitutes the take over of private business then there is going to be no real point in debating it any further, agree to disagree.

First, implying that anyone would want people to be without adequate health care coverage is just intellectually dishonest.

I agree

If government takes over health care and brings it under government control, that means that there is less space in the free market for private businesses to sell or provide health care coverage. To imply that government can take control of health care and not put smaller privately owned companies out of business is just naive. So, it stands to reason that some companies, as government takes control of the health care industry, would lose their health care provider. Then those companies would either have to drop coverage altogether and have employees go on the government program, or be forced to go with the government approved privately owned health care provider. Either way, it lose-lose for the small business and employee, as the cost of health care will inevitable increase. Now, before anyone spouts the Obama rhetoric about health care costs coming down as a result of fully implementing the ACA, please refer to the CBO estimates showing that the original cost of the ACA as sold by Obama has increased threefold, from $900 Billion to $1.2 Trillion over 10 years; which is another Obama lie and example of fundamentally transforming America from a republic to a social democracy.

Its amazing how you come to some of these conclusions. The government requires certain standards for auto insurance so I don't see how that can contribute to a take over. Then the provision to provide a private option only serves to close the gap of the uninsured thus bringing millions more people into the fold. People that until now have been draining a constantly increasing amount of money from the healthcare industry. What happens when this causes the overall costs of healthcare to go down? Then premiums drop and those same small companies will end up being able to provide coverage for even cheaper! You are confusing the healthcare cost of the individual vs the cost of implementing the changes in the healthcare system. They are two completely different cost structures. The cost to the government of 1.2 Trillion is only a 30% increase, not 300%. This is the cost that the government has to pay which is still less than the provisions also passed to pay for it, even with the increase those provisions will still reduce the deficit. Now the cost to the individual which has been climbing at an unprecedented level is the part that Obama is saying is going to go down. With less free loaders draining the healthcare system while putting nothing back in, the actual cost of healthcare should go down. Think of it like a software company being able to force everyone who is pirating their software to pay their share, it will decrease the cost of the software because the honest people who pay will not have to pay extra to cover for the loss of money from the pirated software. This is the fundamental part of the healthcare reform that was needed.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Look into history to see how long the repubs ran congress.
If they were so disastrous, then they were to the tune of 8 to 1, and sorry, thats not even believable.
Certain standards are nothing more than mandated regulations.
Sounds like control to me.
The new deal, the great society has cost this country, which is fine, but nothing to reach for.
Placing this idea into Obamacare, is it something we should reach for?
Now, bottom of the barrel for those who cant or simply wont is good, but there is nothing to say this also wont happen to health care.
Dont have a heart attack on the weekends in England for example, as all the good ones have the weekend off, and leaves the younger or more trending to be inept doctors working weekends.
Rank and file, as the government demands, as the unions demand heads in this direction, and so far, there has been nothing to show this will change.
The costs have tripled, so far, no ones truly paying, and once they do, a different scenario will be drawn

 

[riser]

The best I can figure out about the liberal or socialist idea is that they take what is, without their philosophy present, and make their "perfect" idea out of it. It doesn't happen because what is, is because it wasn't their philosophy that created it. They only seem to want to take something and mold it to their viewpoint, except it doesn't work.

Hey, this is great! If we did this then everything would continue as is except everyone would benefit! But it doesn't happen because you changed why it was working.

I would like world peace, to end poverty, to end world hunger, everyone to have their fair share. There is no one size fits all for this. Too many factors and I don't think we will ever be able to address it. Many people are successful because they grew up poor; Many people are poor because they grew up rich. Poor people become wealthy and vice versa.

 

[johnsonma]

Look into history to see how long the repubs ran congress.
If they were so disastrous, then they were to the tune of 8 to 1, and sorry, thats not even believable.

8 to 1 majority of democrats in control of congress? If that's what you are stating then I would revise it to about 2 to 1
Certain standards are nothing more than mandated regulations.
Sounds like control to me.
K lets get rid of speed limits and any and all laws since those are also mandated regulations.
The new deal, the great society has cost this country, which is fine, but nothing to reach for.
Placing this idea into Obamacare, is it something we should reach for?
Now, bottom of the barrel for those who cant or simply wont is good, but there is nothing to say this also wont happen to health care.
Dont have a heart attack on the weekends in England for example, as all the good ones have the weekend off, and leaves the younger or more trending to be inept doctors working weekends.
Rank and file, as the government demands, as the unions demand heads in this direction, and so far, there has been nothing to show this will change.
The costs have tripled, so far, no ones truly paying, and once they do, a different scenario will be drawn

The costs have not tripled. In the end the whole argument against the healthcare is based in emotionally biased assumptions. No one seems to want to look at what the legislation is really trying to accomplish. I won't deny that its not a perfect piece of legislation but I will say that it needed to be done before it was impossible to contain the rising healthcare costs.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Modern era, looks close to 8 to 1 control to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

 

[johnsonma]

I was dating back to the 1800's with my estimate. However it is interesting that Newt Gingrich was the leader of this revolution. Either way I am not sure what your argument is here.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

johnsonma wrote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some argue that keynesian economic policies deviate from a standard social democracy as well. Unrestrained capitalism will devour itself, we have history to thank for teaching that lesson.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I totally agree that Keynesian economic policies used by the democrat controlled congress over the past 90+ years have completely deviated from the theory and template. Even Keynes admitted that a country can not sustain deficit spending, that spending cuts are necessary until the finances are in the black, then resume deficit spending. The Democrat controlled congress has failed at applying sustainable economic policy. Obama has failed to provide the leadership necessary to bring the opposing sides together to even pass a budget. Obama has failed to influence the Senate run by Democrat Harry Reid to even bring a budget to a vote. As a matter of fact, the Federal government, with two branches controlled by Democrats, has failed to pass a budget in over THREE YEARS! It just may be that unrestrained capitalism does devour itself, but that appears to be less painful than not passing a federal budget in over three years while at the same time increasing deficit spending and fundamentally transforming America into a social democracy.


Incidentally, the only time since the 1920's that America had a budget surplus was when Clinton was President with a Republican controlled House and Senate. That speaks volumes about 90+ years of largely democratic controlled economic policy. Heck, the last time there was a balanced budget and America's national debt was paid in full was in 1835 under Andrew Jackson!

In reply to fact, when big government spending took place, who was in control, and its mismanagement

I would add, the term rino was created around the Bush era as well

 

[johnsonma]

Incidentally, since the 1920's America has become the richest most powerful country the world has ever seen. This speaks volumes for the largely democratic controlled economic policy. By the way, the goal is not to have a budget surplus, that is basically wasting money.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Theres no budget surplus with a 15 trillion dollar debt.
As to our history, when you blast your competition to rubble, you not only win on the battlefield, but the economic end as well.
And wasted monies arent ever wasted, theres this thing called tax cuts or refunds thru extra revenues, which various states have done over the years.
Those monies dont have to go to public spending, and moving that money helps the economy, as well as what the government gets back from all the spending when its done, depending on turnover

 

[chunkymonster]

Incidentally, since the 1920's America has become the richest most powerful country the world has ever seen. This speaks volumes for the largely democratic controlled economic policy. By the way, the goal is not to have a budget surplus, that is basically wasting money.

It was Democrat policy towards war supported by American manufacturing that made America the richest most powerful country the world has ever seen. War is the engine of America economic strength. How else did you think the 90+ years of Democrat controlled and failed domestic economic policy and deficit spending was maintained?

War! That's right...let's look at history.
- Democrat Woodrow Wilson pushed America into WW1
- Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had America fight on two fronts during WW2
- Democrat Harry S. Truman dropped the atomic bomb
- Democrat Harry S. Truman heavily influenced the United Nations to go into Korea and act as the international police only to follow up with American troops
- Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was smart enough to stay out of Vietnam, Democrat John F. Kennedy ignored advise from folks like Charles De Gaulle and sent troops into Vietnam, and Democrat Lyndon B Johnson really put American troops into the crapper

So, please do not be so quick to cite the stupendous domestic economic policy of 90+ years of a Democrat controlled Congress. If it wasn't for Democrat penchant for war, the deficit spending and poorly managed social policies would have made America into a social democracy long before Obama.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Problem is, the MSM and hollywood have not porteayed it this way.
History be damned, it was all those rich arms makers that made those lil ol poor dem presidents do what they did

 

[musical marv]

Problem is, the MSM and hollywood have not porteayed it this way.
History be damned, it was all those rich arms makers that made those lil ol poor dem presidents do what they did

And the NRA are pulling the strings of the Republicans to.Romney is another smuck going with the NRA because they have money and power behind them.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Theres always a victim and an evildoer.

Ive found, those who point that out all the time, or become a part in it, are usually the greatest offenders

 

[chunkymonster]

And the NRA are pulling the strings of the Republicans to.Romney is another smuck going with the NRA because they have money and power behind them.

Fact is Marv, the gun issue is a dead issue.

For 10 years, Democrats had the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. In those 10 years, there was no statistical improvement in the reduction of violent crimes or gun related crimes that could be directly contributed to the AWB itself. And, if I remember correctly, it was Janet Reno as Head of the DOJ that failed to follow the record keeping rules spelled out by the AWB and failed to prosecute cases under the AWB.

Fact is, it was Democrats who lost the political will to renew the AWB in 2004 because the rhetoric they told to pass the AWB was proven to actually be lies.

Fact is, Americans are tired of hearing about gun control when there is nothing being done to address the underlying causes of murder, suicide, and violent crime.

Fact is, crime has dropped in ALL States that have adopted a Shall Issue CCW law.

But fact don't matter to you Marv...you are a liberal.

 

[wanamingo]

FBI is reporting a 40% increase spike in background checks to buy a gun. It seems this false flag operation is having the opposite of the intended effect.

Could you expand on that?

Do you think the US government is behind the Aurora shootings?