Can someone explain the "tea parties"?

[Fast_Eddie]

Unbeliveable. Sure, let's move on. What the hell. This is a total waste of time. How many facts do I have to present to make a point? Jesus could come back to Earth and say "Reagan was wrong" and a hoard of folks would say "well, when he said 'wrong' he really meant..."

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Unbeliveable. Sure, let's move on. What the hell. This is a total waste of time. How many facts do I have to present to make a point? Jesus could come back to Earth and say "Reagan was wrong" and a hoard of folks would say "well, when he said 'wrong' he really meant..."

I donno, come up with some facts, and a point, and I'll fill ya in!!!

Just kiddin, tryin' to play nice in the sandbox,

Chas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

"Voodoo Economics"? Look around, the entire world is operating under the principles of "Voodoo Economics".

As you may know, the phrase "Voodoo Economics" was coined during the 1980 election campaign by none other than George H W Bush. He was describing the economic policies favored by his primary opponent Ronald Reagan. Those policies, deregulating everything, cutting taxes on the wealthy "to stimulate growth" and then borrowing from foreign countries to cover the shortfall, are what got us into our current mess.

Indeed, other countries did model their economies along "Reaganomics" lines. To the extent they did they found themselves in the same sort of mess we do. Britain is an example. Margaret Thatcher was Reagan's disciple after all. Iceland really drank the kool aid and their economy has totally collapsed.

John

[wajobu]

...and neither do the cries of "Obama is Hitler and a Socialist". If these idiots knew their history, one is a Fascist and the other is a Socialist. So many of these protesters have not a clue about World history or history of their own government. Stop them on the street and ask them some questions about the branches of US govt., the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, anything. In general, they're clueless. They only know what is fed to them by Glenn Beck, etc. Lemmings, they are.

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As you may know, the phrase "Voodoo Economics" was coined during the 1980 election campaign by none other than George H W Bush. He was describing the economic policies favored by his primary opponent Ronald Reagan. Those policies, deregulating everything, cutting taxes on the wealthy "to stimulate growth" and then borrowing from foreign countries to cover the shortfall, are what got us into our current mess.

Indeed, other countries did model their economies along "Reaganomics" lines. To the extent they did they found themselves in the same sort of mess we do. Britain is an example. Margaret Thatcher was Reagan's disciple after all. Iceland really drank the kool aid and their economy has totally collapsed.

John

GHWB kind of dropped the voodoo economics once he became XO. I'm not so sure that reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge cost him the election, personally, I feel the Democrats time had come. The Gulf War and Perot, mainly Perot, was what cost him the election.

I'm not sure that either "Reaganomics" or raising taxes are inherently wrong.
That said, blindly following the same discipline is almost destined to failure.

The situation remains fluid.

As to passing the blame to Reagan, Shrub, Carter, Obama, FDR, the Congress, Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the Republicans, the Democrats, the collective people, etc is only politics as usual.

Pretty much all of them have been handed a basket of parts containing a Rambler and a washing machine, and told to "Fix it!"

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the economy plugs along as well as it does.

And I will tip my hat to anyone who comes up with the ultimate answer. Not an impossible scenario, but a most unlikely one.

But I do know one thing. Blaming it on the other guy don't work.

Chas

[d-ray657]

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is not the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

Excellent response.

It will take me some time to digest this.

I suspect that we're pretty much on the same page. Perhaps we let labels and misconceptions stand in the way of a constructive criticism.

Something which I really can't pin on you.

Give me some time, I promise not to take your statements out of context and play "gotcha".

Good evening, my friend,

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Excellent response.

It will take me some time to digest this.

I suspect that we're pretty much on the same page. Perhaps we let labels and misconceptions stand in the way of a constructive criticism.

Something which I really can't pin on you.

Give me some time, I promise not to take your statements out of context and play "gotcha".

Good evening, my friend,

Chas

Your are too kind, dear sir. I find it difficult to resist a good chance at a "gotcha." I also make pretty free use of labels, but then, some labels do accurately discribe the nuts inside.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

(Weeping)
Beautiful, just beautiful. I'm gonna have to sleep on this. But I could have said any better.

Cordially,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

GHWB kind of dropped the voodoo economics once he became XO. I'm not so sure that reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge cost him the election, personally, I feel the Democrats time had come. The Gulf War and Perot, mainly Perot, was what cost him the election.

I'm not sure that either "Reaganomics" or raising taxes are inherently wrong.
That said, blindly following the same discipline is almost destined to failure.

The situation remains fluid.

As to passing the blame to Reagan, Shrub, Carter, Obama, FDR, the Congress, Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the Republicans, the Democrats, the collective people, etc is only politics as usual.

Pretty much all of them have been handed a basket of parts containing a Rambler and a washing machine, and told to "Fix it!"

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the economy plugs along as well as it does.

And I will tip my hat to anyone who comes up with the ultimate answer. Not an impossible scenario, but a most unlikely one.

But I do know one thing. Blaming it on the other guy don't work.

Chas

Another beauty! I can go to sleep tonight hoping that a better day is coming......

Thanks, Chas!

Cordially,
Dave