Joel:  So, show me where Obama is just handing out money to people

Daniel: Oh, I know all about Savage.  I believe people have free will and that outside forces can not be blamed for people's actions, but he's clearly calling for his audience to murder people.  In direct terms.  No hyperboyle.  Have YOU listened to his show? 

Michael:  Of course I have looked at Obama's proposed spending plans.  I think they're great.  A corporate neo-con?  Well, it's a mixture of two terms.  Corporate means:  cor�po�rate �� (k�rpr-t, k�rprt) KEY �

ADJECTIVE:

Formed into a corporation; incorporated: the corporate companies of industrial America.

1. Of or relating to a corporation: corporate assets; corporate culture.
2. United or combined into one body; collective: made a corporate effort to finish the job.
3. Of or relating to a corporative government or political system.

And Neo-Con means: ne�o�con �� (n-kn) KEY �

NOUN:
Informal

A neoconservative: "The neocons and hard-liners have long felt that no Soviet leader could be trusted" (New York Times).

In our modern political terminology, it refers to a conservative who favors the business end of things.

It must be hard for you, to have to look words up.  Gets you all frustrated.  You start spiting and ranting and typing angry things on the computer.

But to answer your question about Reganomics - so... if it was so great - and yeah, I'm just some dumb hick - I don't get big words and fancy economic logic - but if it was so great, why come we owe so much monies every time it put in effect?  Why come average income down so much?  Why come more poor people?  Duh.... me stupid... but I'm not that stupid. 

Why, look here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm - I don't see unemployment too drastically changed by Trickle Down Economics - in fact - I see some pretty high spots of Unemployment.

And lookie here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html I don't see a huge benefit for the average income - the high point?  Internet bubble.

Here's a page that brainwashes dummies like me: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

Let's clarify this - No presidential candidate is suggesting we just hand out money to people - just like no candidate is suggesting we destory the bill of rights - these are boogey man ideas used to scare electorate bases.

Obama does have some plans for having government provide certain services - which, being a democrat, I support.  I get that some conservatives like the idea of no taxes and pay as you go, etc - and to them, I say:

Ok.  Next time you call the cops, be ready to get a bill.  Next time your house is on fire - be prepared to pay the market value of a firefighter's time.  Want to walk on the street?  $5 please.  Hope you are one of those rich conservatives, because private school don't come cheap.

Et cetera.

No Democratic candidate has ever called for full on socialism.  It's not what Obama is pushing for, nor Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy, Stevenson, Truman...

False boogy man argument.  Unless someone can prove it, let us move on from these lies and propaganda.

Ok.  Next time you call the cops, be ready to get a bill.  Next time your house is on fire - be prepared to pay the market value of a firefighter's time.  Want to walk on the street?  $5 please.  Hope you are one of those rich conservatives, because private school don't come cheap.

Mike, this argument is akin to a conservative arguing back at you with, "Ok Mike. Let's have a massive tax increase to employ everybody in the US. And let's have another massive tax increase to purchase everybody in the US a car. And another massive tax increase to purchase everyone a home. Because we all owe everyone employment, transportation and a home don't we?"

They're both extremely exaggerated perversions of a point of view that accomplish nothing.

So, is the current dismal U.S. economy Clinton's fault? Or Carter's?

*******

Mostly, the Democratic Congress of the 1980's.  Congress is the branch with the power to regulate interstate commerce (interstate commerce being defined as just about any thing that can in the most tenuous way be said to touch on economic concerns).  It was that Congress which created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  The effect of this was to change the real estate market from a local market where mortgages were owed to local banks and turn it into a national system whereby the market could be exposed to investment in the same way things like commodities are exposed to investment.  Thus, the bubble and the bust.  In the past the Real Estate market was largely immune to something as pernicious and irrational as speculation.  No longer.

Um, Joel, no, it's not.  Taxes pay for all the things I listed.  People don't need cars, but transportation is covered in many cities, by municipal transportation systems.  There is no flaw in my arguement.

I just got this pic e-mailed to me:

It's a good one, right?  Yeah!  We sure told those Commie Obama supporters, didn't we?

If John McCain wins, there will be no taxes!  Yay!

Um.  No.

You're going to get taxed either way. 

Huh?  I vote Democratic (with the youthful indiscretion of going for Perot when I was 19 or so).  Aside from that its been Clinton, Gore, Kerry and soon Obama.  But a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter which party comes up with it.  Exposing homeowners to the vagaries of a national market was a bad idea.

But, hokay!  Way to dismiss me as a blanket blame-the-libs GOPer.

Um, Joel, no, it's not.

Um, Mike, yes it is.

See I can play too!