Republicans Still Suck

Wow, I thought maybe Monica went back to the Whitehouse. Anyways...

Look at that, JJ, a republican, worships Bush. Who didn't see this coming?

You know what emoticon ATS really needs? A smiley that expresses , but at the same time also expresses that the person would actually respond in that manner, but also have an edge of . I don't know why I brought that up just now.

To get back to addressing Full Metal's po9ints and his defense against what I had stated earlier, I would just like to say...Oh, wait, he didn't say anything... Nevermind.

I don't know what Rant was implying, but I will say what I think BOTH (That's Right BOTH) Parties Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this! both of our last two presidents Clinton and Bush have done this. they each had a diffent way of going about it but at the end of the day, they are both guilty of it!

Clinton- We all know how much he cut defense. If it wasn't being used at the moment, he tried to AX it. Bill Clinton didn't understand the military, so he chopped the leggs out from under it. (you know, they should make a movie about what Clinton did, and call it: Revenge of the Hippy!

Bush- He Bill's oppisite! He is becomeing a war monger. He is looking for a war. Defense is good, war isn't. BTW, I found a picture of George W. Bush going to a meeting:

external image

Hey George, the hood look good on you!

Tim

I would like to apoligize for this photo and the comment about Bush! While I can't stand George W. Bush, and despise EVERYTHING he stand for, to equate Bush with Emperor Palpatine is unfair. As a friend pointed out to me yesterday Emperor Palpatine was Genocidal. Bush is Not a nice person, but to say he's no better then a genocidal mad man is truly an insualt he doesn't deserve. Sorry if I offened anyone.

Tim

Bandit jumps in my!@#$% for calling the Pleiadians Eurotrash, comparing them to the French...and RANT gets away with this?? Oooh....kay...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Toelint]

Toelint...
You should know by now that it is A-O-K to talk pure-T-trash about the US and Bush, but everyone else is off limits.

Shame on you.




seekerof

LOL seekerof. I guess the next time I trash somebody, he better be a red necked white guy, in a blue suit.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Toelint]

Of course the Republicans suck-- they're politicians, and are therefore mendacious, power-hungry, sociopathic scum.

The economic boom of the late 90s had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and everything to do with a booming stock market. That boom was destined to collapse, since it was based largely on grossly inflated values for tech stocks-- stocks for companies that often not only had never turned a profit, but could never be expected to turn a profit. The boom collapsed NOT because of Bush's election, but because reality set in and investors stopped buying worthless stocks. The timing of both the onset of the illusion that these stocks were valuable and the realization that they in fact were not was purely coincidental.

Tax cuts really do stimulate the economy, and that really has been proven repeatedly. They don't do so immediately, so shallow and short-sighted people often don't make the connection when they eventually do.

Spending cuts are not inherently bad. As a matter of fact, they're much needed in this country. The problem is that the grossly overpaid bureaucrats who are the cause of most of the excessive spending stay on after the cuts, and cut services largely in a mostly successful effort to convince shallow people that spending cuts are bad.

"In a democracy, each party devotes its chief energies to proving that the other party is unfit to rule, and both commonly succeed, and are right." -Mencken

Moreso to do with reaping the rewards of new technological economies created from scratch over years of investment via federal subsidy also known as taxes!



Hogwash. That's been proven nowhere by anyone except in the most shallow and self serving of definitions of vertical wealth creation, at least when it comes to Bush's version of merely rewarding the rewarded. It stimulates wealth for a select few which already have wealth which has never been proven to trickle down or voodoo anything into existence of value to the system and country and people that created the super wealthy in the first place. The multi-millionaire you make richer today is not going to reinvest in America that invested in him (if he even bothers to do his patriotic duty of paying taxes anymore). He's going to outsource, and offshore and the Republicans will do all they can to reward him for doing so.



I can see how Bush's outrageous tax cuts for the top 1% help the Chinese and Central American economies, but not ours. Perhaps you're the shallow, short sighted one for thinking Paris Hilton is going to open a manufacturing facility in your town because Bush gives her more of a break from her duty to reinvest in the infrastruture that made her grandfather rich, but I live in reality.



From surplus to a 8 trillion dollar deficit in 6 short years. I'd say so. And a guillotine to get rid of the borrow and spend Republicans that can't govern anything from a checkbook to a hurricane relief effort, but think they should be involved in everything from Terri Schiavo's marriage to the courts to your child's school grading teachers. Amendment minded big government borrow and spend Republicans out to destroy every advance of the last century for their perverse interpretation of reality via their manipulation of the simple minded is the problem and I welcome anyone to this thread that actually has a thought in their head to prove otherwise.

The Republican Party is a worthless criminal enterprise undeserving of air.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by RANT]

I understand that we are in PTS and that etiquette is somewhat subdued here, and that regardless of your inherent hatred for anything deemed conservative or Republican, to insinuate what you have is not surprising. It borders on homicidal and sheer unadultrated hatred, representative of the party and side you are commonly associated with, RANT: the liberal hate party of the Democrats.

I find it honestly befuddling that you would insinuate the death of those who you so despise. You know, not being allowed to breath air is associated with death? Makes me wonder if this is not a breach of the T&C of this site. Probably not, being you are apart of staff and certainly know better. BTW, I am a member of the Republican Party, and after reading what you lastly mentioned in your post above, I had a thought of posting something to let you know how I felt, visually, but decided against it, being I should know better, eh? At any rate, thanks for your absolute thought concerning those you have come to so inherently despise and hate.

Personally, and just in my own honest opinion, you really need to get a gripe or seek anger management classes before that hate you so express eats you up like a cancer gone wild.





seekerof

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Seekerof]

No kidding.

Taxes? Subsidies? Since internet startups have never been subsidized, I assume you must mean Arpanet-- the government funded skeleton over which the body of the internet as we know it was built BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Subsidies are in no way responsible for the internet boom, except insofar as the government funded the earliest networks, which networks languished, largely unused, until private enterprise discovered them and made them into what the internet is today. If it weren't for private enterprise, the 'net as we know it simply would not exist.



I got a tax cut. I'm not a multi-millionaire. I spent the extra money. I stimulated the economy. That's why tax cuts work.



Then we agree. Good. I might point out though that you've fallen victim here to a common bit of propaganda. We NEVER had a "surplus," we only had a projected surplus, which projection was based largely on the assumption that the grossly over-inflated stock market would never adjust back to reality, which was an assumption that no rational person believed, even then.



If you open your mind up just enough to substitute "politicians" for "republicans" then you'll be right. As it stands, you're only half-right.

I was referencing one vocal success story in particular known as Bill Gates that has openly spoken about his own story in support of his progressive politics. How he didn't invent the Internet, he used it to create wealth for himself. And if you do go back to the beginning (of anything) it does come from government investment in things like public education, federal grants and military research.



I got one too. It didn't cover one COBRA payment, but I got one. Part of my support for a progressive tax rate includes lower taxes for working people, the most deserving of cuts, and raising it to solvent levels for the affluent, that owe the most to the system that supports them.

It's much better for the economy for 279 million Americans to buy a TV (or send a kid to college actually) than 1 million to buy a boat. My point was actually there's tax cuts (which few will argue with and are sometimes needed), then there's just dismantling society and destroying the middle class (which is the overt Republican goal).

But using the COBRA example, or gas prices, or healthcare, or descreasing work hours, or a shift from a manufacturing economy to a service one, or any of the other Republican assisted efforts to punish working people, a modest tax cut for the middle class is actually a tax increase in a very real way because more of your money goes to pharmcos, big oil and a dozen other places aligned with the conservative "cause" to make 99% of America a third world country on par with their 'free trade' fantasy of enslaving the planet and 1% rulers of the universe.



I have serious issues with the Democratic Party as well, but I do recognize good independent people in it, some of which happen to be public servants. The difference I see is there are no good Republicans as relates to the party or public service. None. And since they share a brain I have no problem condeming the entire collective. Just speaking the truth.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by RANT]

The tax cuts under the present administration are design to give a false sense to the poor in this country or the ones just above poverty level that they have money to spend.

When in reality the interest rate manipulation is just faking an economy that is far from healthy.

This Black Friday the money that retailers made was mostly from the well off financially population that didn't have to worry about gas or heating oil prices they are the ones that can afford to buy in espensive exclusive store and pay the prices they are the ones that the tax cuts are keeping ahead.

Thanks to them the black friday made it this year.

Mean while even the biggest retailer for the poor, wal-mart just made the mark on credit card ridden population.

Yes manipulating interest rates to fake a booming economy is what's all about.

Let see when the Christmas blues start hitting hard working American next year.

Ouch man... you don't like Republicans I take it? They obviously don't "suck" as bad as some other political parties in this great country.

What's got me curious is how you figure that stock market ups and town are incidental with their timing, but economic ups and downs have a real impct from tax cuts. Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? "Eventually", you say - Where is the proof that this is from the tax cuts, rather than an incident of timing, like the aforementioned stock market?

There's no conflict there-- you've simply misrepresented my statements.

The TIMING of the rise and fall of the stock market was coincidental, but the CAUSE of its rise and fall was a specific set of circumstances-- primarily the relatively sudden popularity of the internet. This created not only a whole new class of businesses and stocks for those businesses, but also provided average people with an opportunity to trade stocks. This led to a rush to buy tech stocks, which stocks were often ultimately worthless, since they represented companies that didn't even turn profits, but which stocks were purchased anyway by people who simply didn't know any better. In the short-term, those stocks responded to supply and demand-- the demand for them was high, so the price rose. But soon enough it became apparent that the demand had driven the price up to a level beyond the actual value of the stock, or of the companies those stocks represented. At that point, the prices collapsed.

It wasn't just an "incident of timing." It was a specific series of events, the timing of which was merely coincidental.


Tax cuts stimulate the economy because they leave more disposable income in the hands of people. Those people either spend the additional money, increasing business income, or they invest the money, which gives the banks more money to loan out, which generally serves to lower interest rates as competition for loans increases, which benefits both businesses with ongoing credit lines and new start-ups.

Quite simply, tax cuts put more money in the hands of individuals, and those individuals put it back into the economy, and the economy axiomatically grows when more people put more money into it.


Now-- before anyone leaps in, wailing and gnashing their teeth-- this is not meant as a defense of Bush's tax cuts, which ARE directed almost exclusively to the richest of Americans. Trickle down actually does work to some tiny degree, but mostly what tax cuts to the wealthiest do is to give them more money to squirrel away. They are less likely to redistribute their money than anyone else is, so tax cuts for the rich really do little good. They DO do more for the economy than most leftists are willing to admit, but they still do far less than tax cuts for the middle class would do. But of course, the middle class doesn't own any politicians, so they don't get tax cuts.

So please enlighten me. Why do Reagan's tax cuts have to wait until Clinton entered office, while G.W. Bush's tax cuts have an effect immediately?

No offense but it looks like political smoke up the kiester.

I want you to read this very carefully:

I never said that "Reagan's tax cuts have to wait until Clinton entered office" OR that "G.W. Bush's tax cuts have an effect immediately."

Please-- stop putting words in my mouth. I find it extremely offensive. If you wish to debate something that I've said, then you have to limit yourself to things that I've actually said. If instead you want to debate some particular point, then go find somebody who actually makes that point. I refuse to defend things that I didn't even say.

Thank you.

DAMN! I have never seen someone so hateful! Gee Rant, I don't like republican politics either, but to say every American who believes in that idology is part of "a worthless criminal enterprise undeserving of air", that's a bit too far!

I personally know some people who are Republicans. I don't agree with all of their political ideas, but as individuals, many of them would littery give you the shirt off of their back if you needed it. To call someone like that a worthless criminal is a lie and an insault that is uncalled for.

Don't Make Politics personal, that's just plain wrong!

Tim