Best regards
Nols

http://xtonlinegame.com

Reject that crap. We've tried it. It failed.

* * *

The Preamble is not part of the body of the Constitution or its amendments and does not constitute law of any kind. The Preamble is the first, weakest-grasp scramble by people who have nothing better with which to “argue.” (I predicted it in the case of the story told by Lazare about abolishing the US Senate and the “justification” given for abolishing this “undemocratic” body, for example.)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose”

Never mind the reality the failures that led people to vote GOP in 1980 and the exposure of the Phillips Curve as nonsense. (And why should the federal government be charged with achieving and providing “full employment,” anyway?)

The US and USSR agreed in the 1990s not to target missiles at each other, or at Europe. This was the reason Russia's threats to target the Star Wars shield sites in Poland were a big deal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/...

Granted, missiles can be easily re-targetted. But this is symbolic of a radical de-escalation of tension between the nuclear powers since the Cold War.

I would argue that the Reagan increases in the debt are parallel to the huge debt load at the beginning of the chart, under Truman.

This stratospheric debt level was a result of the US expenditure during the New Deal, but especially during WW II.

Reagan's more modest defense increases played a key role in the unravelling of Russia. (This is a point of contention – as you say – given the absolute refusal of many on the Left to credit Reagan/Thatcher with ending the Cold War.) The USSR was always economically unviable, but it survived through despotism. It could have gone on much longer except for the variable of defense spending.

I believe the debt load Reagan added to was worth it considering the end of the Cold War and communism. . . much as the debt load FDR added was worth it considering the end of WW II and fascism/Japanese miltarism.

(I also distinguish between Reagan's purpose-driven debt, and the pork of the recent GOP Congress.)

Perhaps we just disagree here.

Ah, you didn't make the chart? I assumed you made it based on the numbers. Mea culpa.

Next, it is debatable whether our arms race brought down the USSR, which was in fiscal trouble already. It is also untrue that we no longer have ICBMs pointed at us. Both we and Russia still have them pointed at each other.

As for the chart, that's a pretty minor criticism isn't it? I didn't make the chart, but if it separated Reagan and Bush, as it should, the trend is the same. There is no partisan spin to the numbers. As I said, they're from White House figures (General Accounting Office).

The United States no longer has thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs aimed at it.

Yes, it does they just happen to in Russia instead of the USSR. Russia's Topol ICBM hits target with new warhead in test launch

“Here, in this shattering new interview, Stephen Spoonamore goes into harrowing detail about the Bush regime's election fraud, past, present and–if we don't spread the word right now–to come. Since he's the only whistle-blower out there who knows the perps themselves, and how they operate, we have to send this new piece far and wide.” (Rawstory.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lrFkRHrRDI

Keynesian economic order collapsed during the “Great Stagflation” from the mid-60s to the early 80s. Reaganism and Thatcherism were responses to this. They effectively ended the threat of stagflation in the US.

You also ignore one of the great achievements of Reagan. Much of his expenditure went into defense. The USSR could not match this expenditure, which was integral in its collapse.

The United States no longer has thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs aimed at it.

Thus, this is one achievement of “Bush/Reagan” in your chart that you ignore.

Reagan left the next generation with a debt . . . and without the threat of Cold War Armageddon.

(Hmmm…nuclear mushroom clouds vs. higher interest rate. I think I will take the higher interest rate)

(Greendreams, I believe your chart on your blog is inaccurately partisan in labelling the 1980s as “Bush-Reagan”. Your labelling of other joint periods reflects the dominance of one figure over the other. Bush Sr. clearly took exception to the “voodoo economics” of Reagan, but it was Reaganomics that was dominant in this period. Your attempt to label otherwise is both inaccurate, and suggesting Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are somehow linked. Philosophically, they are extraordinarily different presidents).

Anyone who proposed sensible regulation was painted as a socialist—the GOP's goal was to let industry write legislative policy. Why do you think Cheney met with energy execs who got tremendous input into our energy policy, but didn't make the meeting public or invite environmental groups to participate??? Tom DeLay also was famous for allowing industry lobbyists to write legislation.

That's why Pelosi is so angry now.

The republican mantra ever since Ronald Reagan has been 1) privatize everything 2) deregulate to free the markets and 3) deep cuts in social services. (PLENTY of quotes, video and audio if you want it). It is that ideology that has brought us to this point, with a degraded environment and a mountain of debt.

Want some facts? This is from White House figures, and shows how every president since WWII has reduced the national debt as a % of GDP, except 3, Reagan, Bush and Bush. Now, as you appear way younger than me, I'd advise you to wake up, because it's your future, and my generation is NOT going to pay down the debt. It's all yours. Your share of the interest on the debt (that is, if you work for a living and pay taxes) is $235 every month. That is the Reagan, Bush, Bush tax hike for working people.

But let's be clear. Deregulation and privatization always has the same effect, privatizes profit and socializes debt, creating a growing wealth gap.

Here's an example: Rumsfeld said “anything that can be done by the private sector should be done by the private sector.” Classic Republican core belief. (AM I WRONG?) So instead of hiring an Iraqi for $2 a day to do some repairs, we contracted it out for $175/hour. The contractor subcontracted, which was also subcontracted until finally a non-Iraqi worker did the job for $2/hr. The unemployed Iraqis were understandably pissed.

This is just one of many documented failures of “laissez faire economics” aka Reaganomics, Thatcherism, etc.

McCain is not Bush, no matter how much spin Obama tries to put on it.

Real facts: http://talkstraight.org/ or http://independents4mccain.blogspot.com/
Tracy Karol

Meanwhile, in the real world: Obama is exploiting many people's security-bwankee sentiments by proposing the raising of federal bank deposit insurance. It's actually interesting that he's using the same figure, $250,000, that he uses elsewhere, in his tax proposals. Quite consistent, quite a sound real-world value (the “economic tropopause”), quite quick of him.

Doesn't this statement contain a fatal internal contradiction? How can you say both at the same time?

* Some six percent of voters tell pollsters that they will not vote for Obama because of his skin color, but the number probably is higher.

six percent are willing to admit that they are racist, and at least twice as many are having the same thought, but are not willing to admit it.