Okay, I'll take the bait and allow JimL to set the hook. He claims I'm a shameless partisan that lambastes the right while giving the left a free pass. I confess I have a contrarian streak. This makes it much easier to bitch about people with power. The left is powerless and inept and therefore makes a pretty weak target. Additionally, nothing makes my blood boil more than people who impose their morality on others and people that take rights away from Americans. The left hasn't been doing this much lately with the exception of trying to fine people who buy cereal with cartoon characters used in advertising.
But to try and establish my purple credentials:
John Kerry is a fool. He is perhaps the least politically savvy politician ever. This latest effort to call for a filibuster from the ski slopes in the Swiss alps just reinforces the stereotype he rightfully earned during the campaign. The stupidest thing he ever did, however, was when a reporter teed up the easiest question ever during the campaign. If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote for the war in Iraq. The moron said yes. I'd agree to take a year off my life if I never had to hear him speak again. I think he and Bush have each done one thing right in their lives. Kerry had that great line about who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake. Bush had that strike he threw at Yankee stadium after 9/11.
Gore isn't much better. The fact that Kerry and Gore couldn't beat a seriously weak Bush in either election bespeaks the political and strategic bankruptcy of the left. The left has no coherent ideology that a layperson can identify with. The left also has no personality. If the evangelicals would just let McCain run, he would slaughter all comers.
Cindy Sheehan doesn't know when to stop and the fact that she and other Hollywood crazies are the poster-children for the left is the reason the left can't get traction. The Dems need some kind of leadership to distance from these nutjobs. As I understand it, Sheehan is currently in Venezuela hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez. The lefties that have actual charisma are way too left for regular folks to identify with. The sensible centrists have no charisma. They're fucked.
As a career third-party voter, I'd love for a true centrist to emerge that had sensible economic policies and didn't want to force their personal Jesus on me. The lobby, the church, and the lefty interest groups are too strong, as well as the goofball primary system. I'm fucked. So I'm going to continue to complain about powerful people putting stupid policies in place. Since George is damn near a monarch, there's a good chance most of this complaining will be about him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Kerry had worse grades than Bush at Yale. Now, I don't think that's an issue, but the Dems sure tried to make W's grades an issue in that election. Furthermore, he would be our worse nightmare, a politician unable to take a stand, one who would put things to a "global test". "This is why I voted agains it before I voted for it". Need we say more? This is a guy that views evrey moment of his life, including Vietnam, as a photo op. His biggest credential seems to be that he is an east coast elitist.
Regarding Clinton: First term, lousy, lousy, lousy. Putting HILLARY in charge of a healthcare plan that was so bad it got zero votes from DEMOCRATS. Post '94 he moved to the right, after the repubs swept the election and Clinton second term was fine with me. I love Hillary taking about a "culture of corruption", which is the latest mantra of the dems. Shall we list all the corruption that the Clinton administration and the Clintons themselves were involved with. I will start with the Marc Rich pardon and end with her trading in Cattle Futures. The list i n between is way too long to include.
I don't know if a NEW WORLD ORDER is the same as a GLOBAL TEST,but anytime you would entrust our own security to global leaders who have proven incapable of making any decision at all, I vote no. In fact, I think that anything Chirac says yes to, I would be inclined to say no. George Bush screwed up the war, miscalculated the number of troops it would take, went in too soon, etc. I still believe though, that Saddam had to be removed, and that the UN would NEVER have done anything about it, no matter the circumstances. Just wait, they will fiddle until some disaster happens with IRAN.
Regarding the deficits, that is where the Republicans have screwed up the most, just as they did under Reagan, and this is where I believe that the two party system actually works. I would prefer a centrist President, even if it's a Democrat and a Republican Congress to foil him or her.
The thing about deficits though, is that they are often a function of the economy. 4th Quarter GDP when Clinton took office, BUSH 1's legacy, was up 3.7%. 4th Quarter GDP when W took office, Clinton's legacy, was .7%. Yes the recession had already begun, and then was accelerated after 9/11. Ayone who blames 9/11 on Bush is an idiot, or has simply forgotten the FIRST WTC bombing, the multiple chances to catch Bin Laden that were blown, the USS Cole, etc., etc.
Bush was dealt a lousy hand. What do you do when you try to jump start an economy? Tax cuts and interest rate cuts. In EVERY instance that this country has cut taxes, TAX REVENUES HAVE RISEN. I defy you to prove otherwise. WHY? because they give the economy a jolt. This has been the case here and elsewhere. This baloney about tax cuts being for the rich is a democrat invention.
Maybe I should mention here that the economy is recovering nicely and that TAX REVENUES ARE RISING.
The biggest joke in the world was when Bush and Gore were arguing about what to do with the Surplus. The surplus was a bonus of many years of economic expansion, triggered by the REAGAN TAX AND INTEREST RATE CUTS. The numbers back me up on this. When Reagan took office, interest rates were at 22% and tax rates were astronomical. THANK YOU DEMOCRATS!
Again Reagan and the Republican congress blew it on spending, but the tax and interst rate cuts turned around our country.
Can't buy that Clinton's transgressions paled. Maybe I sould point out that HE WAS IMPEACHED. What a great role model he was when he was stonewalling the grand jury. Kerry's position was consistent? Surely you are not up to speed. They had tapes of Kerry saying he was the Anti-war candidate, and that he was pro-war. Surely when he says things like, "this is why i voted against it before I voted for it" cannot be consistent with consistency.
Sorry, I don't agree at all that we have to win back the repect of our allies. Someone has to make tough decisions. Sometimes we may be wrong. But a dilly-dally, do nothing World League is exactly what led to both World Wars. Good luck with all that.
Finally, fuck them. We are the most generous nation in the world, the best trading partner in the world, and the first country that gets called when things get really tough. These "leaders" don't want to lead or follow, they just want to get out of the way, except that doesn't always work. Are the French having problems with the Muslims now? YES! Imagine that.
Whoever wrote this doesn't understand economics. Reagan took office in Jan of "81 and he was supposed to have already impacted the economy in Jan of '81????????
This is the way it works. You get elected, then you pass laws, then they take about 6 months to a year to have an effect. SO, they pretty much make my case for me.
Regarding the widening of the classes. This has been going on for years, and certainly did under Clinton. When you have a leaky/nonexistent border policy, and lower income classes multiplying roughly three times faster than upper income classes, it's inevitable.
As you can see by their words, the did have an effect, it took a few years, but that's how economics always works.
So even they admit that within a few years the tax cuts had their effect. I am losing my enthusiasm for putting energy into these arguments, but the list of countries that enjoyed economic growth after tax cuts, is very lengthy. I was an economics major and it's what I do for a living, so you can't change my mind with a very poorly written article on Wikipedia.
"President Reagan's tax cuts were indeed followed by increased growth and substantial job creation. However, real (inflation-corrected) tax revenues dropped from 1981 to 1983 and did not surpass their 1981 level until 1985"
This pretty much makes my case for me. Remember what kind of shape we were in in '81 when Reagan took office.
This is my last post, this is sapping my energy and my will to live. The REAGAN TAX CUTS have not been reversed. Look at where taxes were when he took office and look where they are now. Regarding whether they stimulate the economy. Are you saying the economy was better off before his cuts? Remember STAGFLATION under Carter? That's what he inherited.
The economy W inherited was in recession. Now we are not, so the tax cuts didn't help?
Regarding "tax cuts for the wealthy", apparantly you didn't read the laws. EVERYONE got a tax cut, so why do you and your liberal cronies keep suggesting that it was only for the wealthy?
Regarding the notion that only tax cuts for the poor help stimulate the economy, that would be incorrect. Do you know what the single biggest cause of new job creation is? Capital investment. What gets Capital moving faster? Lower capital gains taxes.
The Crapital Gains tax is the stupidest tax we have, but the liberals keep portraying it as only benefitting the rich. Guess they don't really care about job creation if it gets in the way of a sound byte.
This has been fun, but it really does take too much of my time and energy. I may respond from time to time on non-economic or war stuff, but this is starting to drain the life force out of me.
I am feeling weak, My life force might never recover and I was just reading.
Post a Comment