"Where the h.... is the outrage????

The outrage has been replaced by resignation. We all think we're finally electing someone of value (from the lowest local race on up to the top), and usually are roundly disappointed with the outcome. It seems that lately politics attracts those who are looking for a chance to fleece the rest of us. And those who start out with noble intentions are either seduced by the opportunities to make money at the public's expense, or realize that the only way to get things done is through back doors and by violating their principles.

We've had a rash of discoveries of local public officials stealing their municipalities blind. One (an elderly woman) embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the municipal water/sewer office she headed. Another in the Philly area stole over 1/4 million dollars(!) from her local school district's lunch program in order to feed her gambling habit.

After a while, you just sort of throw up your hands and figure..."What's the use?" Too bad.....I pity the next few generations for the legacy we're leaving them.

And don't get me started on CEO salaries!!!!
 
I am a very conservative person... lean a bit libertarian (not the party, the less gvmt aspect)... and I can say that I don't like most of the liberal plans on spending money like socialists...

BUT, I am disallusioned (sp??) with the Republican party right now... the Senators from Texas are a JOKE... The White House has become a joke... I have been outraged with them taking away the rights of AMERICANS because of the 'war on terrorists'...

So, a few rounds of democrats in power might make a difference... but I hope it is not 'the first woman'... I just couldn't stand that... (unless some other woman steps up and wins...)
 
TexasProud: Juliani seems to have demonstrated effective leadership skills. It looks like he has the skills a conservative could be proud to vote for.
 
The outrage has been replaced by resignation. We all think we're finally electing someone of value (from the lowest local race on up to the top), and usually are roundly disappointed with the outcome. It seems that lately politics attracts those who are looking for a chance to fleece the rest of us. And those who start out with noble intentions are either seduced by the opportunities to make money at the public's expense, or realize that the only way to get things done is through back doors and by violating their principles.

We've had a rash of discoveries of local public officials stealing their municipalities blind. One (an elderly woman) embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the municipal water/sewer office she headed. Another in the Philly area stole over 1/4 million dollars(!) from her local school district's lunch program in order to feed her gambling habit.

After a while, you just sort of throw up your hands and figure..."What's the use?" Too bad.....I pity the next few generations for the legacy we're leaving them.

And don't get me started on CEO salaries!!!!

All very well said - I might add - what good leader would want to get into politics? Today you would have to open up all aspects of your life to everyone.
 
I blame the government we have squarely on the voters. They put the current 'leaders' in power.

If the voters believe you can have tax cuts and increased spending without running into financial problems, ala Reagan and Bush Jr., then why would you wonder when the chickens come home to roost?

Even today I hear so called 'Conservatives' thinking Reagan did a great job of balancing the books.
 
Cut-Throat said:
I blame the government we have squarely on the voters. They put the current 'leaders' in power.

If the voters believe you can have tax cuts and increased spending without running into financial problems, ala Reagan and Bush Jr., then why would you wonder when the chickens come home to roost?

Even today I hear so called 'Conservatives' thinking Reagan did a great job of balancing the books.

How could Reagan possible have balanced the books. He was too busy fixing the debacle of the 70's era and the joke of a president Carter. ;) And what financial problems? This economy is strong as hell and you are experiencing one of the longest bull markets in history thanks to those tax cuts.
 
Mwsinron said:
And what financial problems? This economy is strong as hell and you are experiencing one of the longest bull markets in history thanks to those tax cuts.

Just wait until the unemployment rate for what economics consider full employment begins to rise to historical norms - then the real whining will begin. When I was in school that was about 5% we have been below that for quite some time.
 
The last time I checked my state had the highest unemployment rate and it was about 7%. A few years ago that would have been considered very good, almost full employment.
 
dex said:
Just wait until the unemployment rate for what economics consider full employment begins to rise to historical norms - then the real whining will begin. When I was in school that was about 5% we have been below that for quite some time.

Well thats obvious. It cant get much better so just wait till it gets worse... ::)
 
Cut-Throat said:
I blame the government we have squarely on the voters. They put the current 'leaders' in power.

If the voters believe you can have tax cuts and increased spending without running into financial problems, ala Reagan and Bush Jr., then why would you wonder when the chickens come home to roost?

Even today I hear so called 'Conservatives' thinking Reagan did a great job of balancing the books.


No doubt it is the voters fault. But who are they going to vote for. Lee Iacocoa says "... throw the bums out...". Yes, that is all well and good, but as I see it then you get a whole new set of bums in political leadership roles. After Clinton (his approval ratings were also very low), Bush is elected. He is the best this country had to offer? Then, John Kerry and Bush --- what kind of a choice is that? So, I voted for a third party candidate. Maybe if more people voted for another party, a message would be sent to Washington.

The Democrats are looking at Obama to be their savior because, according to most polls, they don't think Hilary can beat any of the republicans. Obama gives great speeches but what else....
 
janeeyre said:
No doubt it is the voters fault. But who are they going to vote for. Lee Iacocoa says "... throw the bums out...". Yes, that is all well and good, but as I see it then you get a whole new set of bums in political leadership roles. After Clinton (his approval ratings were also very low), Bush is elected. He is the best this country had to offer? Then, John Kerry and Bush --- what kind of a choice is that? So, I voted for a third party candidate. Maybe if more people voted for another party, a message would be sent to Washington.

The Democrats are looking at Obama to be their savior because, according to most polls, they don't think Hilary can beat any of the republicans. Obama gives great speeches but what else....

You got a good point. If the Democrats put anyone halfway decent out they would have been elected.
 
janeeyre said:
TexasProud: Juliani seems to have demonstrated effective leadership skills. It looks like he has the skills a conservative could be proud to vote for.

He is not going to be on the ballot come November next year...
 
Mwsinron said:
How could Reagan possible have balanced the books. He was too busy fixing the debacle of the 70's era and the joke of a president Carter. ;) And what financial problems? This economy is strong as hell and you are experiencing one of the longest bull markets in history thanks to those tax cuts.


Carter was more responsible for any financial improvement than Reagan ever was. He appointed the fed Chairman that was responsible for taming inflation by raising interest rates. Carter took the bad medicine that eventually corrected the economy. Reagan did nothing but spend.

You can blame the 20% interest rates on Carter, but that is precisily what the country needed to quit spending and tame inflation. Your boy Nixon tried Wage and Price controls in the early 70's, Ford came out with his 'WIN' button, but Carter implemented the Real Fix. By the way, the Fed learned a lesson from this and if inflation got out of hand again, they would raise interest rates just like that again.

You can put Republican Spin on this all you want and you are entitled to your opinion. But these are the facts dude, and you ain't entitled to your own facts!
 
Wow! Cut-throat sounds like one of those that just pulls the D lever no matter whose running. That's fine and the party bosses count on them.
 
Did I miss something in government class. Congress spends not the President. Yes, it seems the President gets credit/blame for it. But, I was under the impression, all spending originates in Congress. I think there are even some court cases saying the President can not elect not to spend it even if he wants to. i.e. no line item veto. I think his only option is to veto spending bills, which are seldom stand alone bills. If so, then it is Democrats largely responsible for spending prior to Clinton as they controlled Congress since FDR. Just as it is Republicans who are responsible since 1994.

Another question on the Carter administration, is how much of that inflation was caused by the OPEC’s gas increase? (of which Carter had no control)

My point would be, is the political party you/me/they don’t like that is often credited with the bad and the one you/me/they/we like get credit for all the good in the economy. Wouldn’t it be nice if the journalist/economist did their job and actually tried to get to the bottom of it in an unbiased way?
 
Cut-Throat said:
Carter was more responsible for any financial improvement than Reagan ever was.

C-T, first time I've ever seen this position taken. What are you basing this on? Carter, although a nice man - may go down as one of the worst presidents - followed by a man who history may include with the greats.
 
Arc said:
C-T, first time I've ever seen this position taken. What are you basing this on? Carter, although a nice man - may go down as one of the worst presidents - followed by a man who history may include with the greats.

This is the Kool-Aid that right-wing talk radio has been feeding you. Look at the facts. Look at who appointed the first Fed Chairman to raise interest rates to tame inflation. Reagan Great. - Hah! - He was the worst until Bush Jr. was elected!
 
Since Bush #2 came to power the federal debt has skyrocketed. Now we pay over 400 billion dollars a year interest on the debt. That's a fact which came about because of the choices that Bush and his Republican congress made. The tax cut and increased spending on Wars.

China has just made noises about not accumulating so more dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4875606.stm What will happen when they stop buying our treasuries? What will happen when the dollar falls so much that our government can't borrow at a reasonable interest rate?

Some economists predict that the solution to this disaster is 70s style inflation and it is only a decade away.

All this will be a nasty inheritance from the Bush #2 admininistration and his Republican congress.
 
Oldbabe said:
Since Bush #2 came to power the federal debt has skyrocketed. Now we pay over 400 billion dollars a year interest on the debt. That's a fact which came about because of the choices that Bush and his Republican congress made. The tax cut and increased spending on Wars.

China has just made noises about not accumulating so more dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4875606.stm What will happen when they stop buying our treasuries? What will happen when the dollar falls so much that our government can't borrow at a reasonable interest rate?

Some economists predict that the solution to this disaster is 70s style inflation and it is only a decade away.

All this will be a nasty inheritance from the Bush #2 admininistration and his Republican congress.

Yes indeed.
 
Cut-Throat said:
I blame the government we have squarely on the voters. They put the current 'leaders' in power.

If the voters believe you can have tax cuts and increased spending without running into financial problems, ala Reagan and Bush Jr., then why would you wonder when the chickens come home to roost?

Even today I hear so called 'Conservatives' thinking Reagan did a great job of balancing the books.

I said that the second time the people re elected Bush. The american people get what they deserve, an incompitent nincompoop along with his ill equiped hangers on.



Kinda like the poor guy in a beat up row boat two months after Katrina hit and saying he was dumbfounded at the federal and state response after another Bush visit. He said I am one of the jerks who voted for Bush
 
400 billion dollars! Now that is a nice chunk of change. However, does anyone know of any articles that puts that into perspective? How doe that compare to other war time spending rates? How doe it compare with GDP, adjusted for inflation, of past congresses?

Someone once said, (paraphrase) ‘Remember Statistics Never Lie, people who quote them often do.’ All too often I read headlines talking about ‘the largest spending/dept for (fill in the blank) ever’. Yet the author never relates, that inflation is the cause, and the rate of spending is the same.

This is not to justify Republican spending. More than the Iraq, out of control Republican spending cost them power. At least it was the over riding reason for my displeasure.
 
Oldbabe said:
Since Bush #2 came to power the federal debt has skyrocketed. Now we pay over 400 billion dollars a year interest on the debt. That's a fact which came about because of the choices that Bush and his Republican congress made. The tax cut and increased spending on Wars.

China has just made noises about not accumulating so more dollars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4875606.stm What will happen when they stop buying our treasuries? What will happen when the dollar falls so much that our government can't borrow at a reasonable interest rate?

Some economists predict that the solution to this disaster is 70s style inflation and it is only a decade away.

All this will be a nasty inheritance from the Bush #2 admininistration and his Republican congress.

I voted for Bush II 4 times. The first time was when he ran for Texas gov and I thought he'd be good. After that it was only because the dems put up total losers by comparison and I agree that others will disagree. Much of what Bush II has done is way different from what I would have liked to have seen done. He has clearly demonstrated he does not fit my definition of a conservative.

Oldbabe, you do have some traces of Kool Aid still on your lips. Our budget deficit is at record dollar levels but it is low as a comparison to our GDP. I would like it to be lower but I'd get there by reducing the social spending which might find objections with you and others on this forum.

China will stop selling to us because they don't want any more dollars? Who, pray tell, are they going to sell to? I suspect China will go on a buying binge in the US and the rest of the world with their dollars and Euros ala the Japanese in the 1980s and the mid-east oil countries are doing now. China tried to buy a US oil company that got shot down. They will be back. They won't stop selling to us because we are the largest market on earth.

I tend to agree with your view of "inflation" hitting but I think it will be in the form of "depreciation" of the US dollar similar to what happened to the pound sterling starting in the beginning of the 20th century. That was when the pound was slowly replaced by the dollar as the "world currency." People would feel more comfortable with something else but the Euro has so many structural flaws it isn't ready to take over leadership. Right now, my guess is that there will be a move to a "basket of currency" approach where the dollar will play a role but the Euro, Pound, Yen and Yuan will be larger players.

I would like to see the dem congress fix the problem but I am not encouraged with what I've seen to date. They've demonstrated they want to investigate GW to the end of his term and talk "impeachment." It may sell well to the dem base but it won't "fix" anything. I hear nothing but rhetoric and posturing. There is a clear positioning for the next election when I think the dems will have to put forth a "unique" candidate to lose the White House. The repubs have next to no chance which is why there aren't a lot of stronger candidates coming forth from their quarter.

Bush II will fade into history. He presided over a very strong economy with an emphasis on his second term as did Clinton I. The business cycle has not been repealed but all politicos claim the upside and blame the "other party" for the down years. I don't see a strong "legacy" being established for him (nor do I for Clinton I). Bush II has had some positives but the big story is Iraq. He will ultimately be judged by how Iraq turns out viewed 50 years from now. Right now that doesn't look too good.

BTW -- If Rick Perry (current gov of Texas) is on the repub ballot, I highly recommend voting for some other party. Dem, liber or communist for all I care but he deserves a quiet retirement ASAP. I can't imagine a worse gov for this state. He has already made noise about being "available" for the VP slot and I almost upchucked.
 
I vote Democratic almost exclusively because I am unhappy with what has happened to civil liberties in the past 6 years. Yes, I know, worse things have happened in the past but that doesn't discount what is occurring now. However, neither party appears to be able to find a balanced budget with both hands and a GPS. Both sides value bringing home the bacon over long-term fiscal or social responsibility. IMHO we need either electable libertarians or a balanced budget amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom