Palin Plays Games with Political Elites, Pundits, and Reporters Heads

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Takes time to fix 30 years of mismanagement, insane trade policies and to get the middle class working again. It's not all Bush's fault but the fault of conservative ideology that has us on the brink of depression and has driven us into a 3rd world economy. Ross Perot warned us about conservative ideology but the country wouldn't listen, now we are seeing the results.
Don't you ever get tired of backing the interests of multinational and communist billionaires?

Well, we've had three years of nothing but Liberal ideology, and things have gotten worse across the board. The difference now is, we are another several trillion dollars in the hole, and nothing to show for it. The continual Liberal beat-down of capitalism and free enterprise, have created an environment of anemic economic growth. The out of control and insane Liberal spending binge has greatly reduced the value of the dollar, and continues to do so. The Liberal anti-oil agenda has caused fuel prices to skyrocket. And the pie-in-the-sky Obamacare was so impossible to implement, they are now forced to issue 'waivers' to their key supporters, to keep from being lynched by their own.

You're really confused on history and conservatism, aren't you? Let's recap quickly... Reagan was a conservative... under Reagan, we experienced the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history. (that means things were very good) H.W. Bush was not Reagan, and not a Reagan conservative... he was a Neoconservative. He abandoned many of Reagan's principles, and as a result, the economy suffered. Enter Bill Clinton... he was neither conservative or liberal, but an opportunist and populist. With cajoling from Newt's Congress, he signed welfare reform into law, and balanced the budget (albeit with smoke and mirrors)... this brought the economy roaring back, but much of the new economy was based on the new technology (the internet), and when that bubble burst, the economy again went into decline. Bush came in and lowered taxes, which again, boosted the economy... he was reelected because of it. In his second term, spending began to spiral out of control, and we ended up funding two wars... the economy hit the skids again, and then there was The Obama. Hope and Change is what he sold us.... did he deliver?

 

[Nemo]

The current financial crisis was the direct result of deregulation. And, yes, you can place the blame for this squarely on both Reagan and Bush. If the FDIC, FSLIC, HUD and FTC had done a proper job of regulating the banks and mortgage lenders, and if the SEC had exercised proper oversight of the sale of these mortgage- backed securities, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The current financial crisis was the direct result of deregulation. And, yes, you can place the blame for this squarely on both Reagan and Bush. If the FDIC, FSLIC, HUD and FTC had done a proper job of regulating the banks and mortgage lenders, and if the SEC had exercised proper oversight of the sale of these mortgage- backed securities, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Incorrect as usual. Deregulation had nothing to do with Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's plan to ease lending restrictions of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. That was an action taken by Congress, not a deregulation. This is what ultimately caused the whole thing to collapse, as people began to default on loans they had no business acquiring in the first place. But this is typical of a liberal, fuck things up royally, then point your crooked dishonest finger at Republicans, and blame them for it. America should stop listening to you morons, because it's always the same tune, some idiotic notion that promises liberal socialist utopia but consistently fails, then is blamed on Republicans through twisting and spinning the facts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. It started with Regan and ended with Bush. Barney Frank was taken for a ride.

No, you are a moron. Under Reagan, we had the longest period of peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation. What part of that are you having trouble with? Reagan did do some deregulating, because we had way too much of it, and it was stifling growth. It is completely silly to say that all republicans want to do is deregulate everything across the board. That's the myth you wish to propagate, but it's dishonest and fundamentally silly. Everyone understands there is a need for certain regulation, and it is important to not go crazy with deregulation... but that said, who on the Republican side is proposing a deregulation of something these days? I'm not hearing that, are you? Nope, what I am hearing is you yammering on an on about a Regan policy that worked, and trying to somehow blame all the problems post-Reagan, on that very policy. It's the exemplification of liberal stupidity.

 

[Crashk]

Dixie you live in la-la land. You reading Laura Ingram's history books again? Reagan taught us deficits don't matter, remember?
In late 2002, Cheney had summoned the Bush administration's economic team to his office to discuss another round of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill pleaded that the government -- already running a $158 billion deficit -- was careering toward a fiscal crisis. But by O'Neill's account of the meeting, Cheney silenced him by invoking his take on Reagan's legacy...
Debt does have to be repaid, and foreign investors -- primarily the central banks of Japan, Britain and China -- own $1.7 billion of federal debt. That, he said, has made the country "terribly dependent" and "terribly vulnerable."

That is a bipartisan fear. "The key point is, even if it were sustainable, it's not desirable," said Orszag, a prominent Democratic economist. "We still will owe the money to foreigners. We're still mortgaging our future national income. Just because you can take out a larger mortgage to buy a bigger house doesn't mean you should."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer




Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP

The table below shows the annual federal spending, gross federal debt, and gross domestic product for average presidential parties, specific presidential terms, and specific fiscal years.[9]
Fiscal Year Party of President Federal Spending Federal Debt Gross Domestic Product
Increase Increase Increase
1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2% 12.6%
1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4% 10.7%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Dixie, we will never agree on Reagan and the corporate take over of government that he started and you radical right tea bag republicons represent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Reagan taught us deficits don't matter, remember?

Yes, I do remember, do you remember what the National Debt was at that time? Or how much of a deficit we were running? Reagan never suggested that deficits don't matter EVER... that is just more liberal lunacy seeping out, and even a moron should realize how ridiculous that would be. Reagan's philosophy (at the time) was to create economic growth, and through that growth, we would eventually make the debt inconsequential. If you are earning a six-figure income, and getting raises annually, does it matter that you are in debt for a $500k home? No, because you can make the payments, you can see how you will ultimately pay the home off and not be in debt. You don't have to pay the home off right now, you don't need to do that, as long as you are getting paid and getting raises... the home will eventually be paid for. Now, if you have lost your job, or took a substantial cut in pay, and continued to renovate and expand your home by taking out second and third mortgages, that would be ignorant and foolish, but that is what we are currently doing with our national debt and budget. Now we have a situation where our mortgage payments are literally more than we can expect to make, and we are having to borrow money from people we don't like, to meet the obligations.

Regan did indeed argue that the deficit didn't matter, when the debt was MUCH lower, and we could see a way to earn enough over time to pay it off. That dynamic no longer exists, it vanished sometime during the Bush years, now the debt and deficits matter. We're now in a situation where we can't possibly 'grow' our way out of it, we have to cut federal spending and cut it dramatically. The sooner this is done, the better off we will ultimately be. Reagan also wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment, it was one of his most passionate issues, but he couldn't ever get a Democrat congress to do this. The BBA would have forced government to live within its means, and if we had adopted it back in 1980, we would probably not have a national debt right now. We could have paid off the $1 trillion we owed back then.