What Republicans need to do????

[i'va biggen]

They are rioting in Mississippi over the elections will we soon see the pointy hats?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by S-Man

When you have white male Republican Senatorial candidates open their mouths and foolishly utter the words "rape" and "pregnancy" in the same sentence, they end up losing significant number of female voters.

how to win the female vote:


in vetro fertilization ... hell no you cant have a baby

rape ... hell yes, you are forced to have that baby


republican logic

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by S-Man

When you have white male Republican Senatorial candidates open their mouths and foolishly utter the words "rape" and "pregnancy" in the same sentence, they end up losing significant number of female voters.

It's funny how you hypocritical Dimocrats raise such a brouhaha over misspoken words, but then have no problem using the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator as a front man stumping for Odumbo. The convicted perjurer, Slick Willie the Sexual Predator personifies the white, misogynist male, but that doesn't seem to bother you hypocritical Dims one bit.

[S-Man]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's funny how you hypocritical Dimocrats raise such a brouhaha over misspoken words, but then have no problem using the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator as a front man stumping for Odumbo. The convicted perjurer, Slick Willie the Sexual Predator personifies the white, misogynist male, but that doesn't seem to bother you hypocritical Dims one bit.

I am amused that you took offense to my comment. Why is that?

Neither you nor I will have to worry about getting pregnant by a rapist. For that simple fact, no man should tell a woman what she can or can not do if she got pregnant by her rapist.

By the way, their statements pissed off the independent female voters in those states not just the "Dimocrats" as you state.

By the way, I am 100% pro-adoption. I just would never demand others to share my values.

[ss4699]

Originally Posted by marco2007

I personally think this election was THE major turning point in the country's politics. The future will be very different.

For a very large block of voters, it's now all about getting a check or free goods from the government, no matter what the cost in terms of lost freedoms, no matter how much personal privacy we give up, no matter how big, cumbersome or intrusive the government gets. There are enough people living off the government and living here illegally to control national elections. Unfortunately taxes can't be raised high enough to support them all.

The America of the founding fathers is passing on with the WWII generation.

And down the hill we go!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Uh, the U.S. did after the Great Depression. Granted WWII also had something to do with it, though that was spending which was destructive, and spending alone is not sufficient, but after WWI when we had huge debt we spent more to send the GIs to school so we didn't have a huge unemployment problem and we invested in the interstate highway system, started the Cold War (all of that spending and much of it not productive spending on things like weapons) and returned to the greatest prosperity that the world has ever seen (and freedom that was and is the envy of the world). For anyone who remembers or studies, we didn't actually get very prosperous until the mid-1950s so it took just about a decade after WWII to get there (not just four years). Today we have the attention spans of gnats and expect everything to happen instantaneously in a country with 330 Million people and a world with over 7 Billion. We are mostly mental midgets for expecting that.

Besides, for most of civilization's history (except for a small period in China in the 11th Century) nations didn't have fiat monetary systems so the fundamentals are structurally different since WWII and especially since Nixon ended convertibility. Also, most people didn't have education or access to finance/lending and 99% of all people paid at least half of everything they made (taxes) to the king/ruler so economically there aren't too many parallels in terms of macro before the mid-20th century and Bretton-Woods.

No, we did not spend ourselves to prosperity after the Great Depression or even during/after WWII. And the GI Bill send only a relatively small number of men to college. We mobilized 15 million men during WWII. The number of WWII vets that took advantage of the GI Bill was what? In the few 10s of thousands? Remember, in the last 40s or early 50s there weren't enough colleges in existence to take in hundreds of thousands (or millions) of WWII vets.

By and large those vets came home and went to work in factories. And THAT is where the prosperity came from - though not in a good way if you think about it.

In the 10 or so years after WWII we were in a very unique position. The industrial base of much of the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII. Japan destroyed or stole a whole lot of manufacturing infrastructure in China, southeast Asia, and the Philippines and other conquered Asian countries and then we destroyed Japan. The Germans did the same to much of Russia, France and eastern Europe before they were in turn destroyed.

So, the US was pretty much the only game in town, especially for larger manufactured goods, like automobiles, aircraft, ships.

But overtime, the rest of the world rebuilt and slowly but surely won back their market shares. People who were stuck buying crappy American cars for years could finally buy Japanese cars that were better quality. And they did - with a vengeance. So we lost customer loyalty and are struggling to get it back. Detroit is still in shambles.

So, just what kind of spending do you think is going to fix that? We are running deficits over a trillion dollars per year and we are getting . . . what? Maybe 2% growth in GDP?

We cannot recreate the conditions at the end of WWII where we were the last man standing, nor should we want to. And it wasn't government spending that made that prosperity. it was lack of effective competition from other countries.

Britain also was on the winning side in 1945, but they did not prosper like the US. In fact, their Empire broke apart and the Labour governments that took over from Churchill ran the British economy into a ditch. Why? Weren't they spending enough? Or had they simply lost too many men and too much industrial base?

[i'va biggen]

What republicans need to do is adapt.They can't win a national election with white bread only.They lost all black Latino and Asian voter blocks plus a lot of pissed off women....

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Our debt is not at all unrepayable (an assumption on your part and a bad one) since we create (I don't even say print because most of our money is not printed anymore, it is just 1s and 0s in a electronic ledger somewhere) our own money. We could repay all that debt with one keystroke.

You are nibbling around the edges of saying we should repudiate our debt - though you clearly don't want to state it explicitly.

If you think we have problems NOW, just try THAT and see what real problems are.

We have a sick economy and your cure is to prescribe suicide.

Originally Posted by austxjr

That isn't to say it would be wise to do so because it would cause other problems including, but not limited to possible runaway inflation.

Gee, do ya think?

And I like the way you threw that "possible" in there. Like there is some element of doubt.

Originally Posted by austxjr

It has never been done and it might be a really bad idea to inject $16 Trillion into the economy at one time (foreigners own about 33% of our debt, we owe ourselves the rest) but it could be done. Also, is owing ourselves about $12 Trillion dollars unsustainable? YES, we owe it to ourselves.

The reason it has never been done before (in this country) is because IT IS a bad idea. It HAS been done in other countries in much smaller amounts and it destroyed their economies.

And when you say we owe ourselves $12 trillion, what you really mean is we owe $12T to our pension systems and other folks who've bought government bonds. So when we stiff the pension plans, what do you think happens to our own people?

But you know what? Maybe you have a bit of an idea there. For years, politicians have been making unrealistic promises to public employees unions regarding pensions and benefits in order to buy themselves re-elections support. It has been fraudulent right from the start. A politician pretends to be representing the interests of the taxpayers in his city or state against the demands of the public employee unions, but in reality gives them what they want in order to buy labor peace, to avoid disruption of services and perhaps most importantly of all to get campaigns donations and support from those same unions. So, they promise benefits that will require the city or state to invest its money at annual growth rates of 7% or 8% to meet its pension obligations. In reality we are getting 2% growth.

So, I say, if we are going to repudiate debt, let's start with the fraudulently obtained public employee benefits, particularly teachers. You OK with that?

Originally Posted by austxjr

BTW, the debt issue is an interesting one to me. We do borrow and pay interest, but since we are a fiat monetary system we actually don't have to (remember we make the money so we can make it and charge no interest so why would anyone borrow from someone at interest when they could, if we so choose, borrow it with no interest - the only risk in doing so would be to ignite inflation).

Bonds and borrowing (in the macro-economy, states, counties, cities and companies will have to use that mechanism to finance spending since they can't create their own money) are an artifact of commodity based monetary systems. Basically when Nixon ended convertibility he didn't want to put all those bond traders and financiers out of business so we continued to utilize those mechanisms. Fact (accounting fact no less): In a fiat monetary system the sovereign doesn't have to borrow or pay interest (though it might be the best route to do it in some cases).

OK, so instead of repudiating debt, we print money and inflate our way out of it.

You cannot print $12 trillion dollars and hope no one notices it. If there is no value behind the money, if it is just paper, you will get runaway inflation.

If we don't cut spending or raise taxes enough, we can either repudiate the debt as you have hinted at or we can inflate our way out of it. Both are disastrous.

And BTW, your numbers are WAY too small. We don't just owe $12 trillion to ourselves. Depending on what source you look at, we have made promises of between $70T and $100T between now and mid century that are in EXCESS of what our tax revenues will be.

We are a debtor nation and we will have to continue to borrow for some time. At the first hint that we might repudiate our debt, NO ONE will lend us another cent. How do we pay for our pensions and medicare then?

And if we print money left and right, and we get big inflation we are equally fucked.

The danger with inflation is that the money you are paid back with has less purchasing power that the money you lent out. If you lend out $10K and are paid back $20K over time, but the $20K cannot buy the same amount of "stuff' that the original $10K bought, then you have LOST wealth, no matter how you cut it. So you are poorer. And that applies to everybody in the economy, especially the two income.

The rate of pay increases in an inflationary cycle NEVER keeps up with the increase in cost. Costs go up on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, but you have to wait perhaps a year or more until you get your next raise. And that raise will be paid to you in installments NEXT year to offset the increased costs of living that occurred LAST year. And the very next day, inflation starts to eat into the raise you just got. So you are always playing catch up and losing. The is especially true of the low income.

There was a reason why economists made getting the 10%+ inflation of the Carter years under control a top priority in the 1980s when Reagan came into office, even though it triggered a recession in the first Reagan term. Because the inflation in the long run was worse than the recession.

WHERE IS SEE3772 WHEN YOU NEED HIM TO POST A LINK ABOUT INFLATION, DEBT AND MONEY?

[Yssup Rider]

well with responses like Dimocrats from the .dipshit of the Year, it's obvious what Republicans need to do.

They need to GO FUCK THEMSELVES!!!

Wait a second ... They already have.


never mind.

Oh and BTW -- none of you asswipes would have voted for any of the founding fathers. You wouldn't have voted for Jesus either. so fucking hypocritical there's no wonder your ilk has been roundly rejected by this generation and the next. Your side is the same bunch who wanted to erase Jefferson from the history books. You need to give this ancient history bullshit a rest!

[essence]

What these dipshits need to learn is that there was a US socialism way before their so called 'Europen style of socialism' (whatever that means). US exported their socialism back to Europe a long time ago. Thank you.

I use the word 'socialism' in a very diluted form - in terms of an acknowledgement that there is something called society and there are societal obligations towards each other, in areas such as health and poverty and empowerment of workforces.

Somewhere above another dipshit wrote some stuff about Churchill, WWII, Labour governments etc. - it was complete BS. There had been labour/liberal governments before, and Churchill, although a great war leader, was not suitable for a post war period.

I think it was Roosevelt who fought Churchill over the empire. Churchill always had some strange tactical impulses.

[icuminpeace]

They need to stop attacking poor people, minorities, and women and start recruiting minority leaders that can bring the message to the masses that vote Democratic. They also need to start distancing themselves from the likes of Jan Brewer.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I am amused that you took offense to my comment. Why is that?

Neither you nor I will have to worry about getting pregnant by a rapist. For that simple fact, no man should tell a woman what she can or can not do if she got pregnant by her rapist.

By the way, their statements pissed off the independent female voters in those states not just the "Dimocrats" as you state.

By the way, I am 100% pro-adoption. I just would never demand others to share my values.

You never once addressed how you hypocritical Dimocrats reconcile your sense that you are White Knighting a hyped-up, phony pro-women's rights agenda while simultaneously accepting the convicted perjurer, Slick Willie the Sexual Predator -- who personifies the white, misogynistic male, as a spokesman.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, we did not spend ourselves to prosperity after the Great Depression or even during/after WWII. And the GI Bill send only a relatively small number of men to college. We mobilized 15 million men during WWII. The number of WWII vets that took advantage of the GI Bill was what? In the few 10s of thousands? Remember, in the last 40s or early 50s there weren't enough colleges in existence to take in hundreds of thousands (or millions) of WWII vets.

By and large those vets came home and went to work in factories. And THAT is where the prosperity came from - though not in a good way if you think about it.

In the 10 or so years after WWII we were in a very unique position. The industrial base of much of the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII. Japan destroyed or stole a whole lot of manufacturing infrastructure in China, southeast Asia, and the Philippines and other conquered Asian countries and then we destroyed Japan. The Germans did the same to much of Russia, France and eastern Europe before they were in turn destroyed.

So, the US was pretty much the only game in town, especially for larger manufactured goods, like automobiles, aircraft, ships.

But overtime, the rest of the world rebuilt and slowly but surely won back their market shares. People who were stuck buying crappy American cars for years could finally buy Japanese cars that were better quality. And they did - with a vengeance. So we lost customer loyalty and are struggling to get it back. Detroit is still in shambles.

So, just what kind of spending do you think is going to fix that? We are running deficits over a trillion dollars per year and we are getting . . . what? Maybe 2% growth in GDP?

We cannot recreate the conditions at the end of WWII where we were the last man standing, nor should we want to. And it wasn't government spending that made that prosperity. it was lack of effective competition from other countries.

Britain also was on the winning side in 1945, but they did not prosper like the US. In fact, their Empire broke apart and the Labour governments that took over from Churchill ran the British economy into a ditch. Why? Weren't they spending enough? Or had they simply lost too many men and too much industrial base?

+1

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are nibbling around the edges of saying we should repudiate our debt - though you clearly don't want to state it explicitly.

If you think we have problems NOW, just try THAT and see what real problems are.

We have a sick economy and your cure is to prescribe suicide.


Gee, do ya think?

And I like the way you threw that "possible" in there. Like there is some element of doubt.



The reason it has never been done before (in this country) is because IT IS a bad idea. It HAS been done in other countries in much smaller amounts and it destroyed their economies.

And when you say we owe ourselves $12 trillion, what you really mean is we owe $12T to our pension systems and other folks who've bought government bonds. So when we stiff the pension plans, what do you think happens to our own people?

But you know what? Maybe you have a bit of an idea there. For years, politicians have been making unrealistic promises to public employees unions regarding pensions and benefits in order to buy themselves re-elections support. It has been fraudulent right from the start. A politician pretends to be representing the interests of the taxpayers in his city or state against the demands of the public employee unions, but in reality gives them what they want in order to buy labor peace, to avoid disruption of services and perhaps most importantly of all to get campaigns donations and support from those same unions. So, they promise benefits that will require the city or state to invest its money at annual growth rates of 7% or 8% to meet its pension obligations. In reality we are getting 2% growth.

So, I say, if we are going to repudiate debt, let's start with the fraudulently obtained public employee benefits, particularly teachers. You OK with that?


OK, so instead of repudiating debt, we print money and inflate our way out of it.

You cannot print $12 trillion dollars and hope no one notices it. If there is no value behind the money, if it is just paper, you will get runaway inflation.

If we don't cut spending or raise taxes enough, we can either repudiate the debt as you have hinted at or we can inflate our way out of it. Both are disastrous.

And BTW, your numbers are WAY too small. We don't just owe $12 trillion to ourselves. Depending on what source you look at, we have made promises of between $70T and $100T between now and mid century that are in EXCESS of what our tax revenues will be.

We are a debtor nation and we will have to continue to borrow for some time. At the first hint that we might repudiate our debt, NO ONE will lend us another cent. How do we pay for our pensions and medicare then?

And if we print money left and right, and we get big inflation we are equally fucked.

The danger with inflation is that the money you are paid back with has less purchasing power that the money you lent out. If you lend out $10K and are paid back $20K over time, but the $20K cannot buy the same amount of "stuff' that the original $10K bought, then you have LOST wealth, no matter how you cut it. So you are poorer. And that applies to everybody in the economy, especially the two income.

The rate of pay increases in an inflationary cycle NEVER keeps up with the increase in cost. Costs go up on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, but you have to wait perhaps a year or more until you get your next raise. And that raise will be paid to you in installments NEXT year to offset the increased costs of living that occurred LAST year. And the very next day, inflation starts to eat into the raise you just got. So you are always playing catch up and losing. The is especially true of the low income.

There was a reason why economists made getting the 10%+ inflation of the Carter years under control a top priority in the 1980s when Reagan came into office, even though it triggered a recession in the first Reagan term. Because the inflation in the long run was worse than the recession.

WHERE IS SEE3772 WHEN YOU NEED HIM TO POST A LINK ABOUT INFLATION, DEBT AND MONEY?

+1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pitiful an pathetic pile of bullshit AKA Assup!

.

You're still one very ignorant SOB, Assup. Your every post proves it! Electroshock is still prescribed! Now go tongue an open wall outlet, you Dim-witted, Kool Aid sucking retard. Your atrophied cerebral cortex could use the exercise.

[S-Man]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You never once addressed how you hypocritical Dimocrats reconcile your sense that you are White Knighting a hyped-up, phony pro-women's rights agenda while simultaneously accepting the convicted perjurer, Slick Willie the Sexual Predator -- who personifies the white, misogynistic male, as a spokesman.

Your assumption that I am a Democrat amuses me. The fact that you continue to take offense to what I said greatly amuses me.

If you accidentally get a provider pregnant, would you demand that she keep the baby regardless of her wishes? That is what these politicians are demanding of the women who got pregnant by their rapists. Then again, there is that pro-life politician who demanded his mistress get an abortion.

To answer your question about Bill Clinton, History will do to him what it has been doing to Richard Nixon. History is slowly forgiving Nixon for his sins. Folks will eventually remember him for opening up trade with China and his love of baseball. Eventually, it will forgive Clinton.

It is ironic that you are posting your issues about Bill Clinton on this board. Although none are the president of the US, many members have done what you despise Clinton of doing.