It Is To Weep...
Re: It Is To Weep...
Jim, for all my piss taking out of your rubbish candidate selection process, you must be ever so glad that these dog and pony shows give the candidates a chance to do their party tricks!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: It Is To Weep...
A few points:
Nobody has suggested that the Federal government abandon the very tenuous "social contract." (Indeed, the USSC has ruled that there is no "right" to receive Social Security). What has been very hesitantly suggested is that since SS and Medicare can easily be projected to bankrupt the country within the very foreseeable future, some sort of modifications might be worth a look. And in response, the Left side of the aisle promptly has a heart attack. There is more than one Republican legislator who has been involuntarily "retired" because his Democrat opponent has been able to characterize a casual, factual comment about Social Security as "...that Republican bastard wants to take away your Social Security check!" Thank you LJ for your contribution.
Only a fool negotiates against himself. The correct answer to a hypothetical question, "Would you accept..." is ALWAYS, "No." When you say, "Yes," you find that you have compromised your bargaining position in exchange for NOTHING. The response to a firm offer may be acceptance or rejection, or calls for more negotiation. The response to a hypothetical offer is, No.
More than one Republican president has accepted what he thought was a firm offer of tax increases in exchange for spending reductions, and we all know the reductions never come. It has taken on the aura of a mantra now, and nobody actually feels it anymore, but WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH TOO LITTLE TAX REVENUE, IT'S A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH SPENDING.
The correct response to, "Would you accept X percent in tax increases in exchange for Y reductions in spending," is silence.
The worst of the Republican candidates currently vying for the nomination would be better than Barry. Even an incompetent with the right approach is better than someone who is trying his best to create a European Nanny State, and who has no knowledge or interest about how the economy works. Or what the Constitution says.
My reaction to the candidates so far is that the ones who can think on their feet (Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election. Whether consciously or not, I think the drafting of Perry and now Christie are manifestations of not having someone on the leaderboard who sounds like he knows what he is talking about and can field a difficult question or two without sounding like a fool. Sarah can manage to sound like a fool without the advantage of a difficult question. No one is going there.
Nobody has suggested that the Federal government abandon the very tenuous "social contract." (Indeed, the USSC has ruled that there is no "right" to receive Social Security). What has been very hesitantly suggested is that since SS and Medicare can easily be projected to bankrupt the country within the very foreseeable future, some sort of modifications might be worth a look. And in response, the Left side of the aisle promptly has a heart attack. There is more than one Republican legislator who has been involuntarily "retired" because his Democrat opponent has been able to characterize a casual, factual comment about Social Security as "...that Republican bastard wants to take away your Social Security check!" Thank you LJ for your contribution.
Only a fool negotiates against himself. The correct answer to a hypothetical question, "Would you accept..." is ALWAYS, "No." When you say, "Yes," you find that you have compromised your bargaining position in exchange for NOTHING. The response to a firm offer may be acceptance or rejection, or calls for more negotiation. The response to a hypothetical offer is, No.
More than one Republican president has accepted what he thought was a firm offer of tax increases in exchange for spending reductions, and we all know the reductions never come. It has taken on the aura of a mantra now, and nobody actually feels it anymore, but WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH TOO LITTLE TAX REVENUE, IT'S A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH SPENDING.
The correct response to, "Would you accept X percent in tax increases in exchange for Y reductions in spending," is silence.
The worst of the Republican candidates currently vying for the nomination would be better than Barry. Even an incompetent with the right approach is better than someone who is trying his best to create a European Nanny State, and who has no knowledge or interest about how the economy works. Or what the Constitution says.
My reaction to the candidates so far is that the ones who can think on their feet (Santorum, Gingrich, Cain) don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election. Whether consciously or not, I think the drafting of Perry and now Christie are manifestations of not having someone on the leaderboard who sounds like he knows what he is talking about and can field a difficult question or two without sounding like a fool. Sarah can manage to sound like a fool without the advantage of a difficult question. No one is going there.
Re: It Is To Weep...
Well, you see, there's the problem right there, Dave...(Indeed, the USSC has ruled that there is no "right" to receive Social Security)
If my party believes that it can win the 2012 Presidential Election, with unemployment stuck at 9% (with another 40% afraid of losing their jobs) with the clarion call "The Supreme Court has declared that there is no right to Social Security"....
I would suggest that they think again....
Look at the polling; people expect these things...
I have a theory...
I think that the mood of the populous is such, that given no realistic third option, they will continue to to take the only realistic options open to them to express their dissatisfaction........
To throw the "ins' out, and put the "outs"in....
I think there's a very good chance that in January of 2013, we could have a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House....
And if that doesn't work, the electorate will re-write the board in 2014...
Re: It Is To Weep...
Clinton raised taxes on the top 20% and cut spending.dgs49 wrote:"...
More than one Republican president has accepted what he thought was a firm offer of tax increases in exchange for spending reductions, and we all know the reductions never come. It has taken on the aura of a mantra now, and nobody actually feels it anymore, but WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH TOO LITTLE TAX REVENUE, IT'S A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH SPENDING.
... "
That led to surpluses.
Your party of morons can't figure it out.
yrs,
rubato
Re: It Is To Weep...
Perhaps in a strong economy, but you can't tax yourself into prosperity. You listen to Paul Krugman so I expect no less.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. Mark Twain
Re: It Is To Weep...
Hi, my name is bsg, and I'm a citizen of Red Sox Nation.
I'm hijacking this thread momentarily to lament my team's latest - pinnacle - achievement in the field of 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'.
The thread title seemed appropriate.
Carry on.
I'm hijacking this thread momentarily to lament my team's latest - pinnacle - achievement in the field of 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'.
The thread title seemed appropriate.
Carry on.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: It Is To Weep...
Clinton was no more responsible for the Surpluses (which were the creation of Mr. Newt) than he was for the welfare reform that was shoved right up his ass before the '96 elections.
But if your thinking is correct, then why haven't the Democrats suggested any spending cuts? Indeed, they have implemented unprecedented spending increases, and want to do more. Weren't they watching WJC and the Republican Congress?
Are they stupid?
But if your thinking is correct, then why haven't the Democrats suggested any spending cuts? Indeed, they have implemented unprecedented spending increases, and want to do more. Weren't they watching WJC and the Republican Congress?
Are they stupid?
Re: It Is To Weep...
The Red Sox collapse was historic in a couple of ways. They started the season in the toilet and finished in the toilet, and played quite well in the middle.
Terry has to go.
Even if they had managed somehow to salvage the Wild Card slot, they would likely have been swept in the first round, based on recent performance. Better to experience the defeat and use it to build on over the Winter.
How would you like to be a Minnesota fan: $100million payroll and 99 losses? Or a Pgh "fan"?
Terry has to go.
Even if they had managed somehow to salvage the Wild Card slot, they would likely have been swept in the first round, based on recent performance. Better to experience the defeat and use it to build on over the Winter.
How would you like to be a Minnesota fan: $100million payroll and 99 losses? Or a Pgh "fan"?