Cynical Nation

Well, the good news is that recent poll agregates show Edwards in dead last among the three leading Dems:

Clinton: 47.7%

Obama: 21.3%

Edwards: 13.5%

We can all agree that Edwards is retarded. The government needs to sacrifice. It needs to sacrifice the meaningless war that feeds Bush's crony capitalist buddies. It needs to sacrifice ridiculous social and defense spending. It needs to sacrifice the open bribery system known as "lobbying". It needs to sacrifice the rights it stole from us with the Patriot Act and other illegal schemes.

Barry,
I am amazed with this post. How many times the president you voted for, GWB, has asked the American people to sacrifice? Sacrifice for a war without point, based on false intelligence. And I am wondering why what Edwards said bothers you more than that.

I bet you that you would probably still vote for Bush if there was a choice between Bush and Edwards. Am I wrong? You would still vote for the very worst president in the history of the country instead of a candidate who wants to supports social programs, because he cares for the poor and underprivileged.

Anyway, I will vote for Edwards in the democratic primaries, as I think he is the best candidate.

>I bet you that you would probably still vote for Bush if there was a choice between Bush and Edwards.

Yep.

BTW, can you provide some Bush quotes in which he called upon everyday Americans to "sacrifice?" The reason I'm asking is that there's this whole "Bush never asked us to sacrifice" meme on the left. It's a critique I've never fully understood, but I'd be able to defend him against it if you'd provide me with the quotes.

>I will vote for Edwards in the democratic primaries...

I guess that makes two elections in a row in which you supported someone who voted for the war, huh?

BTW, can you provide some Bush quotes in which he called upon everyday Americans to "sacrifice?"

He has thanked many times the families of the troops for their "ultimate sacrifice" for their country. That's all over. The problem with that is that instead of thanking them, he should be apologizing to them and the country for sending them for no reason in a war with no purpose. HIS war. But you are right, he did not ask them to sacrifice. He simply decided that they should do so.

I guess that makes two elections in a row in which you supported someone who voted for the war, huh?"

No it does not. In the previous elections I voted for Dean in the primaries. I only voted for Kerry in the general, because I would never vote republican no matter what. I had no choice.

Edwards did support the war, but he apologized for that and he recognized his error. Much better than the guy you would STILL vote for :-) Barry I think you should remember that money is not everything in life. Tax cuts is not everything. There are more more important ideas and principles than that :-)

"I only voted for Kerry in the general, because I would never vote republican no matter what."

This pretty much sums up about 60% of the country now, including me, of course.

>Tax cuts is not everything. There are more more important ideas and principles than that :-)

If that's true, then maybe more Democrats should realize it, and compromise on their pro-tax policies (like Bill Richardson) so they can bring more people like me into the fold and establish a real majority.

Anyway, trust me. By the time it's all said and done, you will have voted for three (3) presidential candidates who voted for the war: John Kerry in 2004, John Edwards in the 2008 primaries, and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 general election. At least I only voted for Bush once. ;-)

"Anyway, trust me. By the time it's all said and done, you will have voted for three (3) presidential candidates who voted for the war: John Kerry in 2004, John Edwards in the 2008 primaries, and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 general election. At least I only voted for Bush once. ;-)

Ok, you made a point there :-) I give you that. But, at least, I am voting for people who despite originally supporting the war (for political selfish reasons and/or lack of guts), they now have come to their senses and denounce it. You said you would still vote for Bush over Edwards. Think about it. You would still vote for Bush?? How could anyone?

>You said you would still vote for Bush over Edwards. Think about it. You would still vote for Bush??

Well, it's pretty simple. When I look at the list of issues that are important to me as a voter, I agree with Bush a lot more often than I do Edwards.

Mind you, there are plenty of Democrats I prefer to Bush. But John Edwards ain't one of 'em. :-)

So,
You don't mind the way Bush is driving the country towards becoming a "third world" country? Come on. You should think beyond your pocket sometimes. This is the USA and Bush is doing his best to make it like Mexico. For a few more dollars (hmm...maybe pesos) in your pocket, you are willing to vote again for someone who has been a disaster at all fronts?

"But, at least, I am voting for people who despite originally supporting the war (for political selfish reasons and/or lack of guts), they now have come to their senses and denounce it." (BW)

That's a delusion based on....?....(On what, exactly)???

Neither Clinton, nor Obama, nor even Edwards has promised to "bring all the troops home," in fact they've all claimed that "Our fight is against al Qaeda."

Since it's al Qaeda the U.S. is now fighting in Iraq, they'd all (if tragically given the chance) look to stay in Iraq to finish that fight. Same with the Dem Congress, which ran on "stopping the war," and delivered exactly - NOTHING on that score.

Clinton won't even bar military action against Iran, which is at least honest, since there's no way to bar that anyway.

For his part, Obama would invade Pakistan - a stalwart ally of America's....so long as Musharef remains in power!

The WoT is not going to negotiated away and neither the terrorists NOR the U.S. military are going to let some misguided Americans "vote it away."

The terrorists (pro-Islamists) won't let us, and if we spurn our military and our Homeland Security people and spit in their faces by looking to negotiate this conflict away, I wouldn't blame them for, let's say, getting a little lax about domestic security, at least until another attack rocks Americans back to their senses.

Bottomline, the WoT will be expanded, no matter who gets in.

Sometimes there are fights you just can't back away from.

This is one!


Oh wait, I've finally figured it out (based on more BW statements), it's a DELUSION based in stupidity!

To be precise, THIS stupidity; "You don't mind the way Bush is driving the country towards becoming a "third world" country?" (BW)

OK, let's compare Bush's economy to Jimmy Carter's ("the worst economy since the Great Depression");

INFLATION: Currently under Bush - 2.3%/year (under 3% for all his tenure)

Under Carter inflation peaked in the double digits! He presided over some of the worst inflation in post-Great Depression history! 1979 11.3%, in 1980 13.5%.

UNEMPLOYMENT: Currently under Bush - 4.5% (it's been under 5% for almost all his tenure)

As for unemployment under Jimmy Carter, well his LOWEST unemployment rate was 5.9% in 1979, 1976 was 7.7%, 1977 was 7.1%, 1978 was 6.1% and 1980 was 7.2%

Interest Rates (Long Term interest rates) Have just budged above 6%, with thirty year fixed rate mortgages still avaliable for 5.9%

Under Carter; In September of 1979 long term rates rose FROM 9.2% to 10.1%!!!

Supply-Side policies SAVED the U.S. economy from "Carterism"/Keynesianism and, yes, Third Worldism.

Reagan, Bush, Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr have ALL adhered to Supply-Side policies and THAT'S why the American economy has been so stable and so prosperous over the past quarter century.

I guess it's official, BW is as dumb as Barely Hanging....and I get no joy from pointing that out.

Why do I say that?

All those figures I gave above are easily looked up, but BW is either too lazy, too dumb or too dishonest to post figures that make it clear how much more INEFFECTIVE and disastrous the Carter administration was than any that preceded or followed it.

LOL! JMK has to compare Chimp to CARTER, because he is shit compared to Clinton.

Just admit that Clinton was ten times the President Chimp has been, and that he could have handling the alleged WoT easily, without trashing the consitution.

Bush is a traitor. Bush hates everything America stands for. Bush is an elitist pig, dismantling the middle class to turn America into his favorite country: Mexico.

Clinton was a Supply-Sider, Carter was the last Keyneisan, and that's why THAT'S the apt comparison. I guess you forgot that Bill Clinton was a Supply-Sider.

Moreover, Clinton benefitted greatly from the spending cutting Gingrich Congress. He rightly signied onto the bulk of Gingrich's "Contract With America."

You don't understand the Patriot Act and so you're really not in a very good position to make an informed judgment on it.

I've read it and I support it.

It hasn't been abused to date. The closest to an actual "abuse" was a gang member who killed a nine y/o girl in a recent driveby in the Bronx, who was convicted as a "terrorist," allowing that miscreant to get forty years as opposed to the maximum of nine years he'd have gotten with simple first degree manslaughter.

Not much of an "abuse," I'd think even you'd agree.

Bush is the worst president in the history of the USA. He could be a reasonable president for a country like Zimbabwe or even Mexico. And that may be exactly the reason his doing his best to make it the here like Mexico.

I've gave you the indisputable facts:..."INFLATION: Currently under Bush - 2.3%/year (under 3% for all his tenure)

"Under Carter inflation peaked in the double digits! He presided over some of the worst inflation in post-Great Depression history! 1979 11.3%, in 1980 13.5%.

"UNEMPLOYMENT: Currently under Bush - 4.5% (it's been under 5% for almost all his tenure)

"As for unemployment under Jimmy Carter, well his LOWEST unemployment rate was 5.9% in 1979, 1976 was 7.7%, 1977 was 7.1%, 1978 was 6.1% and 1980 was 7.2%

"Interest Rates (Long Term interest rates) Have just budged above 6%, with thirty year fixed rate mortgages still avaliable for 5.9%

"Under Carter; In September of 1979 long term rates rose FROM 9.2% to 10.1%!!!

"Supply-Side policies SAVED the U.S. economy from "Carterism"/Keynesianism and, yes, Third Worldism."...and you gave me unsubstantiated opinion in return; "Bush is the worst president in the history of the USA." (BW)

I LIKE!

I keep hoping the Democrats do exactly that - give no good reason at all to vote for them.

In fact, how come you're still favoring the Democrats???

The Congressional Dems have failed to do what they ran on, "ending the war in Iraq."

They've made no major legislative initiatives.

Their approval rating is over 10 points LOWER than G W Bush's!

And worst of all, I'd assume from your perspective, "the Schumer-Emmanuel plan" recruited a wave of "New (Conservative/Blue Dog) Democrats" to run out West and down South, in 2006. Those "New Democrats" now account for over 20% of the Democrats in Congress.

So, what's your attraction to the Dems again?

We just want the country back the way it was under Clinton.

Peace, prosperity, and worldwide respect.

Now we have war, inflation, and those of us who aren't brainwashed daily by three hours of Rush Limbaugh are pretty embarrassed that we have a Chimp president.

Actually, a *real* chimp would be less embarrassing.

Oh, and by your standard Clinton was a far better president than Reagan.

Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush JR are ALL Supply-Siders.

It was Supply Side policies that improved the economy over the last quarter century!

And yes, the BEST of those years where when we had a Supply Side Congress (under the great Newt Gingrich) and a President who followed Gingrich's lead (on Welfare Reform, on spending cuts, etc).

Clinton signed onto the bulk of Gingrich's "Contract With America" and that was great.

All of the "poor decisions" Clinton made governmentally were made when he opposed the lead of his Reopublican Congress.

For instance, of the terrible things that Clinton did was to veto the AMT repeal that Congress passed in 1999.

Comparing Reagan (who suffered with a Democratic Congress who fought tooth and nail against Supply Side policies) and Clinton (who acceded to Supply Side policies) is comparing TWO Supply Side Presidents.

BOTH greatly improved America. Reagan even more so, because he dragged government to Supply Side policies, appointed Supply Side guru Alan Greenspan and changed our spending emphasis from wasteful social spending to more military spending. The military spending prepares those young people who serve for better careers after their service is finished.

That change in emphasis is as fundamental in the change in emphasis FROM giving out a fish (Liberal/Keynesian social spending) to teachiong folks how to fish (Reagan's pro-military spending).

The LAST Keynesian to occupy the WH was "Jimma" Carter.

Those policies adhered to by Carter resulted in STAGFLATION and "the worst American economy since the Great Depression."

It is to the point, to paraphrase Nixon, that "We are ALL Supply Siders NOW."

JMK, do you ever feel retarded when you have to resort to the feeble congress/president, president/congress argument to protect your sacred Republican Party?

I invite anyone who is intelligent to actually read about Jimmy Carter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

Now JMK, before you get all slobbery and excited, and single out a single sentence to lisp and spray spittle on everyone for 10,000 words because you think it proves something you said to be true, remember that I am asking "intelligent" people to read the whole thing.

Where is the mention of all of this crazy stuff you make up (or Rush makes up and you repeat)?

OPEC caused the economic problems. Carter CUT government, as he did in Georgia.

You are squawking out lie after lie, JMK.

The word "Keynesian" is never even used in the entire Wiki. Why? Because idiots like Rush just made all that stuff up, and you repeat it like a mindless parrot.

Carter wasn't a very effective leader. Reagan was. Clinton was. Bush isn't. It has nothing to do with your harebrained ideas about economics, or politcal party.

Indeed, Carter was a Keynesian, whose reckless policies, the same policies started by LBJ (who abandoned JFK's Supply-Side tax cutting, military expending policies, in favor of bloated and wasteful social and educational expenditures - there is NO Constitutional federal role in the social and/or educational realm).

Ronald (Maximus) Reagan, a true American Conservative (the first real Conservative elected since Teddy Roosevelt) saved America from Carterism and ultimately Third Worldism.

I've looked for ANY commentary from ANY respectable source that lauds Carter's disastrous tenure, a reign that helped hasten the onslaught and plum the depths of Stagflation, and helped create the radicalized climate (via craven capitulation) in which OPEC tried to strngle America's oil-based economy.

Carter's foibles aren't merely economic.

At least LBJ's, Nixon's and Carter's Keynesian policies had a cure in Supply-Side policies.

His abandoning one of America's stalwart friends (the Shah of Iran) resulted in the legitimizing of what is now called "radicalized Islam," but which is really merely traditional, Sharia-based Islam.

Before the Ayatollah Khomeini was returned to power, radicalized or strict Sharia-based Islam was a fringe movement without a base, without a country and without legitimacy even in the Arab/Muslim world.

After Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, he created a home for that virulently anti-Western ideology and a renewed legitimacy for it.

"Jimma" Carter is directly responsible for the West's current war with Sharia-based Islam.

There is no way to negotiate our way out of this and the war hasn't even fully begun.

Here's what the near future holds in my view, Putin's Russia backs Iran over the West in the increasingly turbulent Mideast, while China backs a radicalized Pakistan over U.S.-backed India...and the global waltz, a waltz that will ultimately become an incredible nuclear tango will begin in earnest.

THAT will be the fourth World War and it's taking shape now.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa is already alligned with "anyone against the West," and the Muslim world will have BOTH Russia and China backing it, along with some strategic allies in South America!

I'm betting that between now and January 2009 we will be far enough along on that path, that even those hopeless, hapless nimrods who still believe "We can negotiate a way out of this," will concede by then, that it is, at that point, "far too late."

Please don't be one of those dopes who'll believe those Liberals who'll wail, "This is all Bush & Cheney's fault! We needed to have talked with these people sooner."

First, at that point, that won't really matter much at all, and secondly, there isn't now, nor was there ever a chance to "negotiate our way out of any of this."

I don't know who'll "win" this mammoth struggle, BUT, I do predict there'll still be about 2 Billion humans left alive after its all over....an optimum and sustainable number - of course, I fervently hope it's us.

If it is, I think ultimately everything will be alright....but in the interim, we have Jim Carter to thank for a cataclysm that will dramatically change the world.

Who knows?

Maybe someday some people will say about this coming armegeddon, what is said today about the U.S. Civil War, that it was a necessary blood-letting.

Maybe in a distant future people will look back and say, "If we hadn't had that global war, we probably might have perished as a species due to an inevitable over-population occurring at that time."

As I tell everyone now-a-days, "Breathe deep, because these are the last of the good old days, a year, two, maybe five from now and everything gets a lot worse...life in war-ravaged Europe, in the midst of the Second World War will look great compared to what's ahead for most of the world."

I should add that I don't think Africa will seem so much worse off, in fact they may feel that future's actually an improvement as most of the rest of the world will slip to that exact level.

THANKS Jimmy Carter!!!

Why do you persist in your harebrained Limbaugh-supplied idiocy? If this is true, go put in in the Wiki.

Oops, I guess they would remove it for being a lie!

The FACT is that Jimmy Carter abandoning "America's friend" (the Shah of Iran) gave what is today called "radical Islam a foothold - a country or base from which to grow and a renewd legitimacy in the Arab/Muslim workd.

Today's unalterable war between the West and global Sharia-based Islam is all Carter's fault.

There isn't a soul out there (including Jimmy Carter) who doesn't call Carter a "keynesian, as Carter called HIMSELF a Keynesian!

The Keynesian policies begun with LBJ's star-crossed "Great Society" followed by Nixon and Carter, resulted in the inevitable Stagflation we saw in the late 1970s.

Supply-Side policies saved America (at least economically) from Carterism and Third Worldism.

Carter remains the LAST Keynesian to occupy the WH, as Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr have ALL been stalwart Supply-Siders.

Here Barely, read this! I googled Carter the Liberal Keynesian myself and found it!

"Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents Clinton, Carter

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.

The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of the lowest is supposed to be comforting.

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.

Bush has rightfully entered us into (and hopefully LOCKED us into) a global military against "terrorism," actually against strict Sharia-based Islam.

The expenditures both at home and abroad have been staggering, BUT many economists believe that the current war spending, will, like all war spending, evetually pay dividends to the ultimate winner. They argue that we're spending $3 to $5 TRILLION to possibly make $50 to $70 TRILLION down the road.

THAT'S IF WE WIN!

Do I think we're going to win?

To be honest, I think, the chances are better than 2 to 1 that we lose.

And not in Afghanistan or iraq, but in the broader WoT, the one which now has Putin's Russia backing iran and China backing other Islamist states.

If I had to guess, I'd say that they'll probably "bleed us dry" economically by around 2020 and then Russia and China will look to spark a "major event," as a pretext for what many Americans think is yet "unthinkable" - an invasion of the U.S.

I think that invasion could be successful and the Russians and Chinese would, enjoy seeing America "Islamicized" at that point, in effect taking us out of any contention for being an economic threat.

I think that "Islamization" could be very successful as Conservative Americans seek to curry favor with their new leaders by embracing Sharia's stoning of gays, prostitutes and other socially corrupt (a/k/a "Liberal) countrymen, but that strategy will NOT curry favor with the new Muslim rulers of America, quite the reverse.

The rest of the world would barely take notice of the extreme blood-letting in teh once proud USA.

I know what you're thinking, IF I really believe it's better than even odds, we LOSE, how can I support this global war?!

Quite simply, because it's morally the right thing to do.

Having said that, the difference between Reagan (a high spending Supply Sider), Bush Jr (a high spending Supply Sider) and Carter & LBJ (Keynesians) is TAX POLICY.

Higher tax rates result in LOWER tax revenues, as those who really, really love America and make higher than average incomes tend to defer more of their incomes as tax rates rise...out of that LOVE for America.

Likewise, when tax rates DECREASE, tax revenues INCREASE because those same higher income earners take more of their incomes up front.

The higher tax rates under LBJ, Nixon & Carter resulted in decreasing revenues and decreasing productivity.

Moreover, social spending does NOT earn dividends the way war spending does, at least for the winners.

Reagan bequeathed Bush Sr and Clinton the centerpiece of both administrations - the cost benefits of WINNING the Cold War. A lot of exc essive spending in both Bush Sr's & Clinton's tenures was covered up by the huge "Peace Dividend."

Again, I've given you the indisputable facts:...INFLATION: Currently under Bush - 2.3%/year (under 3% for all his tenure)

Under Carter inflation peaked in the double digits! He presided over some of the worst inflation in post-Great Depression history! 1979 11.3%, in 1980 13.5%.

UNEMPLOYMENT: Currently under Bush - 4.5% (it's been under 5% for almost all his tenure)

As for unemployment under Jimmy Carter, well his LOWEST unemployment rate was 5.9% in 1979, 1976 was 7.7%, 1977 was 7.1%, 1978 was 6.1% and 1980 was 7.2%

Interest Rates (Long Term interest rates) Have just budged above 6%, with thirty year fixed rate mortgages still avaliable for 5.9%

Under Carter; In September of 1979 long term rates rose FROM 9.2% to 10.1%!!!

Supply-Side policies SAVED the U.S. economy from "Carterism"/Keynesianism and, yes, Third Worldism."..."

There should be no disagreement on those very basic facts.

Hyuk, how does u like mah shiny new tinfoil hat!

Barely, YOU claimed "the Carter economy was better than the current one."

That was your claim....or at least the claim YOU'VE chosen to defend.

The FACTS once again prove that's UNTRUE.

Carter continued the Keynesian policies of LBJ & Nixon and ran America's economy aground.

The Supply-Side policies of Reagan, Bush Sr, Bill Clinton and Bush Jr reversed those damages and delivered 25 years of unprecedented prosperity.

I've been looking around desperately for some reputable economist to make a real case against Supply-Side policies...and to date, NONE has.

Krugman is an Op-Ed writer and NOT an economist at this point.

Laura Tyson (who once lauded Bulgaria's Command Economy) has been thoroughly discredited on that score and Jon Chait (the leading writer against Supply-Side policies), well, he's generally regarded as a "fringe kook."

So what does that prove?

Well, it seems like it PROVES that the "tin foil hat" folks are the ones opposed to Supply-Side policies.

In Chait's case, as in yours, I chalk that up to simply not understanding the basis for Supply-Side policies.

Jonathan Chait's argued that higher tax rates DO indeed result in higher revenues even though ALL the prevailing evidence (for instance the previous 25 YEARS!) shows that view to be wrong.