1 - 10 Next
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:58 AM
I hope the GOP takes up your issues to finish itself off. just know that the old racist stuff failed this time, and the 1960s this is a friend of O stuff failed in 2008. I think you need to provide some real thinking and achievement to bring the country to your side. GWB harmed the party's rep and the last 10 years have also. I doubt this "plan of yours" will make many folks think highly of your side. :-(
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:58 AM
I hope the GOP takes up your issues to finish itself off. just know that the old racist stuff failed this time, and the 1960s this is a friend of O stuff failed in 2008. I think you need to provide some real thinking and achievement to bring the country to your side. GWB harmed the party's rep and the last 10 years have also. I doubt this "plan of yours" will make many folks think highly of your side. :-(
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:55 AM
reagan was a diedhard keynesian - unfortunately what he spent on did not lead to much growth - most of the military spending did nothing in fact - and there was much more waste in military back then - not a great economist reagan - rather slap shod.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:55 AM
reagan was a diedhard keynesian - unfortunately what he spent on did not lead to much growth - most of the military spending did nothing in fact - and there was much more waste in military back then - not a great economist reagan - rather slap shod.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:54 AM
reagan's spending on military did nothing to defeat soviets. the weapons his increases paid for were never used.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:52 AM
not true - the govt in england and here and in every country helps the poor - the private sector has not in the last 20 years done so in any way. labor unions have helped also - but not the corps - pensions are gone, health coverage no longer what it was and wages have not increased.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:51 AM
it is VERY true the politicians have enormous disincentive to raise taxes, more than the american people even. so the pols will not vote for a war if it means also at the same time voting to pay for it with tax increases.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:50 AM
I think we can make social security and medicare help those who need it - the middle class and upper middle class and the poor and increase the amount of income taxed for those who don't need either program - this would change the nature of both programs which FDR called entitlements meaning all are entitled to programs they pay for - contribute to - but if we must then let those who don't need either one pay more - to really save on medicare we need a more central health care program - national etc.
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:47 AM
california people dug themselves in to worst economic losses of any state from where they started from by having population decide things. :-( most folks don't understand economy and finance enough to do this and they have work of their own they need to focus on. bad idea. this post shows how little many understand this. :-(
In response to:

It's the Spending, Stupid!

bearcub Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 4:45 AM
we would definitely be less likely to go to war if the war had to be paid for. the last wars have not been including vietnam. recent history shows that yes, if tax increases were required to be included in any congressional budget paying for a war or declaring war - there would absolutely be fewer wars. I am not sure about other areas of the budget but not that one jack is correct for sure.
1 - 10 Next