Letters to the Editor
-
Seniorplaid
Your wrote: You might argue all day that every one of Reagan's policies was bad for the country.
Yes. Exactly. That was my point. Not idiotic or obtuse at all.
-
@sunspot
What? So it "began" in 1979 and you want to blame it on Bill Clinton and ignore the surplus and blame him for the negative personal savings and high personal debt among other things? C'mon now, you can support whomever but let's not go overboard.
-
@ethics pro Don't throw the baby out with the bath water
I think most everyone here would agree (aside from a few concern trolls) that Reagan set the country off in a direction we don't like. Acknowledging that Reagan has had great influence on the direction of our country beyond his term isn't the same as agreeing with his policies. From a strategy perspective we should be asking, how do we set the country off in a new direction? Are we stuck with tactical finger-in-dyke delaying actions agains the current trend, or can we be more ambitious and seek to reverse the trend? That's what I'm considering.
-
I Don't Believe a Word Obama Says
How about these non-trivial lies from Obama: his continual reference to his "Christian" faith (if you want to call black liberation theology "Christian"); his lies and omissions about his connection to a racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser" (remember when he said that there was nothing controversial about his church?); his "alleged" continual opposition to the Iraq war (which was debunked by Bill Clinton, which debunking earned Bill a "race card"); his denial regarding playing the race card on other occasions (for which he was busted by Tim Russert in the debates); his denial that any meeting took place between his chief economic adviser and the Canadian official (for which he was busted by the memo); his constantly changing testimony about his relationship with and monetary support from Rezko (was it $60,000, $160,000 or what he admits to now, $250,000); his lie during the debate about a pharmaceutical lobbyistâs involvement in his campaign; his lie during the debate about his policies towards Pakistan; his lie in the debate about Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy; his lie in the debate about his former support for a single-pay health plan; etc.
-
@KStone Not blaming Bill Clinton Blaming Greenspan
I, at least, am not blaming Bill Clinton, although one could make a case that WTO, NAFTA and MFN for China accelerated structural trends already in play that suck for the middle class. We're blaming Greenspan. He's a serial bubble creator. His bad advice and cheap money policies throughout the late '90's and early 2000's have led to serious consequences.
-
Are You A Troll?
With all due respect, Reagan's vision and policies helped to get us into the mess we're in.
Didja see anybody praising Reagan's vision or his policies?
No.
But Reagan was effective at getting his vision implemented. The Democrats haven't run anyone that effective since FDR, which is why they've spent the better part of the last 25 years crying in the wilderness (or running Republican Lite candidates like Bill Clinton).
We already know how "effective" Hillary will be, based on her disastrous healtcare initiative in the 1990's, and based on how her well-financed, well-connected campaign imploded after being challenged by the junior senator from Illinois.
-
LMFAO at Greenspan "helping" the Economy.
How will Greenspan have time to help Save the Economy? Isn't he too busy jet setting around the world, doing his patriotic duty, things like badmouthing the greenback, encouraging the Gulf States to abandon the dollar peg, and generally trying to destroy the dollar?
http://www.infowars.com/?p=464
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/191007_open_attack.htm
-
Obama is unelectable
Obama is unelectable. A recent poll suggests that almost 30 percent of Hillary Clinton voters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Add it up; McCain gets almost all of the Republicans and almost 30 percent of the Democrats. Thank you Obama, and your ruthless, deceptive and race-card playing tactics, for helping elect the John McCain as President of the United States.
-
new trolls
I love that we no longer have the anonymous option. Now we can see that all letters by 'theplanner' and 'sonofloud' are always rants about Obama.
If they spent equal time, or any time critiquing their candidate whoever that might be I might be inclined to read them but since they are incapable of anything but a one note shrill screed they negate themselves of meaning or content.
Sorry it's OT but these new clowns make me sick. Carry on.
-
Modern politics is funny
The Head of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary have been making high profile statements for awhile (some before but mostly after the BS sale to JPMorgan) about the need for new regulation on Wall Street. A Presidential candidate echos those sentiments in a speech and is given credit for "vision" and then goes directly to visit a big Wall Street fundraiser for his campaign. "There's no business like show business...." except politics.
-
Drichmond's lack of maturity is showing
Drichmond: What an inspired retort. When one cannot argue on the merits, one calls names. Grow up a little. Are you going to call me a pooh pooh face next? Give me a break.
-
@ Carol Richards
Hear, hear.
-
Blame The Clintons? Why Not?
What? So it "began" in 1979 and you want to blame it on Bill Clinton and ignore the surplus and blame him for the negative personal savings and high personal debt among other things?
First of all, what surplus? The asset bubble Greenspan blew in the 1990's - along with a large tax increase and some budget cuts - lead to a brief period where the Federal government ran a small surplus. A surplus if you don't count all of the money we were borrowing from the Social Security trust. If you do, that surplus was about as real as the peak value of Pets.com stock.
At the same time, personal, local and state debt were all skyrocketing, as was the trade deficit - a trend Bush II has only accelerated by following economic policies similar to Clintons, only with more tax cuts for billionaires and more money for Halliburton. Real wages stagnated, failing to keep pace with the cost of living, especially for the middle class and the poor. The Clinton years were less-awful than Bush I or Bush II - this does not make them a great success. And they helped set the stage for the mess we're in today.
It's not fair to lay *all* of the blame for what's wrong with our economy today at Greenspan's feet. Clinton could have replaced him and didn't, in spite of numerous warnings from responsible economists and others. The Clinton Administration also pursued the strong dollar policy, which priced our exports out of many markets, artificially decreased the cost of imports and helped to decimate our manufacturing sector in the process, all to benefit well-connected financial scam artists like the clowns at Bear and Citibank. In addition to NAFTA and the China free trade agreements, the Clinton Administration also presided over the Enron fiasco, the cancerous growth of mortgage scam factories like Ameriquest and Countrywide, and the repeal of Depression-era economic regulations which had kept our economic growth stable and our population prosperous for more than a generation.
There's a lot of blame to go around for the mess we're in today, and thanks to the Clintons the Democrats deserve a large share of that blame. That's what you get for electing DINOs - Democrats In Name Only. The Clintons promoted Republican-lite policies, with predictable results.