OK, so you probably think Bill Clinton was a decent President. You are wrong…he set us back many years. We are fortunate that we have Bush to avert the economic crisis course that Clinton worked so hard to put us on for eight years. Yeah, right, Clinton gave us the strong economy…lol…lol…lol!!!!

Fact is that Reagan and Bush 1 were responsible for the policies that were put in place that gave us the strong economy of the 1990’s. And if you disagree, may I encourage you to look at where the economy was in 1980 before Reagan came into office. Also, look at where it was headed in the last months of Billary’s fiasco regime. Pretty clear now, eh?

OK, so George W. Bush came into office as Bill left us in shambles, both in the economy and world order, i.e. terrorism. Well, Bush dealt with both decisively. I’m sure the liberals would love to see everything go to hell in a handbasket, just to pour more hate onto our President and gain the power they so desire. At least the Republicans never wished ill will upon our country just for political gain or to say nanny-nanny-boo-boo. How childish and immature to have this shortsighted selfishness and hatred.

Get over it. By the way, please inform me of the economic advantage that either Hillary or Barack provide related to McCain? They are neophytes in the political policy arena and I don’t see how you can claim superiority or equality on this issue at all!

That said, I think TP gets it wrong on the suggestion that McCain reversed course. They didn’t share the entire quote from the SC debate, but following those remarks McCain said, “This is a rough patch.” That’s the same as what he said the other day.

The facts demonstrate that cutting corporate tax rates can both boost the economy and increase revenues, although not always. I think it’s a good proposal. However, what any of the candidates say about the stimulus is basically irrelevant, since it may be too little, too latefor a fix to the economy’s woes.

Finally, as the Times’ editorial board argues, it isn’t just the GOP that has been slow to address the economy. The Democrats “have been slow off the mark, but they’re catching on,” writes the Times’.

That’s ok, Mr. McCain. You can take consolation that neither do the people voting Republican. Which is the reason they vote the way they do to begin with…

Never gonna happen

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

Hmmmm….who was in charge of Congress in 83? Was Tip O’Neil a Republican? That was a lot of beers ago, I guess it’s possible.

BTW, SS is a government created benefit. The wealthy don’t need it, but still pay into it. The “working class” (Oh, FEEL the dialectic nostalgia!) is the primary beneficiary of SS – why would the government just give them a pension if they HADN’T paid into it? That is why O’Neil agreed to the hike – it was necessary and fair.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

It is a very unhappy situation that if the party in power oversees successful policies, the minority is glum and quiet, while if the opposite is true and America falters, the minority party is noisy and exultant.

You despise Bush and the Republicans. You despise their policies. I don’t think you can write off the last 28 years of supply-side economics as uniformly bad – lots of people have made good livings in the US since 1980. Things weren’t so great 1976-1980 from an economic standpoint.

I think the greatest mistake we make is to think the President controls the economy. The forces at work in this global economy, with technology mutating the whole equation faster and faster year after year, no human being or institution can control it. Things have changed since Teddy Roosevelt, Colonel.

All that said, I do have a terrible feeling about the economy. Nominate your candidate well, Democrats….

Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney’s financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.
T
he article is called “Cheney’s betting on bad news” and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in “a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation.”

Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in “Old Europe”.

This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the “Bush Economic Plan” is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation’s wealth from one class to another. It’s also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn’t have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets.

Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is “intentionally” skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney’s portfolio?

It doesn’t. And, one thing we can say with certainty is that Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn’t a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that’s what’ll happen.

“Tax cuts increase revenue….. and they must be offset by spending cuts!”

Face it, conservatives. Your modern conservative/libertarian movement is through.

This rhetorical game you conservatives play is getting very tired. We’ve all heard it before – if I say our policy in Iraq is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for defeat.” If I say our economic policy is a disaster, you accuse me of “rooting for a crash.” Nonsense.

Here’s a thought: why don’t we TAX the wealthy instead of borrowing money from them through T-bills. That’s the way we did it in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. That’s why we had prosperity and the strongest middle class in history.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 18, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

Gee, Col. Jack, you almost sound like you are rooting for a crash. If there is no crash, your era of progressive, liberal policies won’t happen…I am sure you don’t want the economy to tank for political reasons, though.

And sociopaths like Muckdog will be whining all the way.

My favorite whining, simpering remark of yours: “Bush has been at the mercy of Congress when it comes to the market and economy.”

Right. Come November, you can have a good cry and shut the hell up.

So you don’t believe the economy does better with a Democrat at President, either.

Glad to get you on record.

From: Anybody that understands causative versus correlational relationships

Correlation does not equal causation.

Thanks you.

cross-posted from the same place you last posted this drivel, suckdog