Well said, son: http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....s_economic_plan.html

Quoted from President Barack Obama During the last weeks of this campaign there will be debates, speeches and more ads. But if I could sit down with you in your living room or around the kitchen table here's what I'd say: When I took office we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month and were mired in Iraq. Today I believe that as a nation we are moving forward again. But we have much more to do to get folks back to work and make the middle class secure again. Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he'd double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what's my plan? First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas. Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks. Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it. Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home. It's time for a new economic patriotism. Rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class. Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney's and decide for yourself. Thanks for listening. Read the President's plan: http://OFA.BO/SAzDgd

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....attack-on-mob-video/

Again the lies crumble. They can no longer get the mainstream press to play along.

An admininstratrion has not lied and mislead so consistently as these guys since Nixon.

You watch the press conferences, and even network liberals know they are lying. Just watch their faces.

Carney needs a b!tch slap.

UPDATE ON OBAMA PHONES:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/subsidized-cell-phone-program-nearly-doubles-in-oh/nRDqC/

1 million free cell phones just in the "must win" state of Ohio.

I'm not saying that phones are necessarily a bad idea, as they have become essential for many things. But who do you imagine these folks vote for?

UPDATE: http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....se-Counters-Too-Tall

As a business owner, I saw this kind of thing all the time. Regulations used to close businesses because someone has an agenda, or because bueaucrats don't understand the unintended consequences of their regulations.

In this case, a 50 year hamburger joint is being closed because it's counters are too high for the handicapped.

You see, it's easy for people who don't understand business to pass rules and make people pay the costs. Bureaucrats, and their natural ally, Democrats, don't understand that. They live off the public trouch.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....ior-to-91112-attack/

Looks like the coverup is falling apart now. They are trying to delay giving answers until after the election, and the media tried to assist in that effort, but there are just enough honest journalists left, like Jake Tapper of ABC, to keep digging.

Will they sacrifice Hillary? Normally, yes. They usually look for a fall guy. But the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama. And this would ruin her chances in 2016. So I don't think that's an option.

Apparently security was so bad in Libya that family members of security staff were begging them to quit. Repeated requests were made to the State Department to increase security. Why didn't they increase it? Why has all this been covered up? Why has the administration been so blatant in what can only be called lies?

This story isn't over.

Rather than posting spurious, preposterous claims about Libya that are entirely part of last minute, we're-doing-this-cos-we're-losing-the-argument electioneering from the Republicans, perhaps you can respond to my post at the bottom of page 12 that shredded your Reagan hypothesis.

We both know I drank your milkshake, Kevin.

Quoted from leitskev Again the lies crumble.

I generally avoid this thread like the plague, unless there is trouble brewing.

But these hater-hind-sight attacks of yours just leave me baffled, Kev.  So congrats, I guess, in that you have drawn me in.  At least for a bit.

I think you are a smart guy -- don't get me wrong -- and lord knows you spend more time researching this stuff than me.

But post 9/11 there were just as many, if not more, "after the fact" folks who pointed their finger at Bush, and presented plenty of evidence -- much of it compelling -- that all the dots were in place for anyone willing to connect them.  And they claimed that Bush had failed us somehow.

This magic-8-ball diplomacy sword you are weilding cuts both ways, and it isn't even fair, really, to call someone out on their fortune-telling skills in the first place.

Isn't the Bush crew every bit as culpable (and in your eyes, incompetent) as Obama here?  And to an even far worse extent?

If not, what is the point you are making?

First Andrew, later Bert. Pressed for time.

Is this the what you are referring to?

No, what happened under Reagan is that the lower income earners started to pay a higher relative rate whilst the 'wealth generators' paid a lower rate to 'spur the economy'. A reduction of 70 to 28% no less. In addition to that, the Reagan administation cut opportunity spending, while unjustly increasing defence spending. _ Andrew

I'm really not sure. Kind of ironic. I've answered pretty much every point you've ever made. Certainly covered every point. And yet here is a typical sample of how you deal with my points.

Kevin: teachers unions are the primary reason for the destruction of the American school system.
Andrew: why?
Kevin: Because they make it impossible to fire bad teachers, and they encourage huge, inflexible bureaucracies that resist any attempt at change.
Andrew: so says you.
(Kevin provides a link to an award winning documentary establishing this and explains there are actually numerous other films and books on the subject)
Andrew: well, that's just some crazy conservative.
Kevin: no, actually it was a liberal reformer, and this is just what his research happened to find.
CRICKETTS
Andrew: so hows the weather over there?
Kevin: fine. But what do you say to my points.
Andrew: Bush lied, people died.
Kevin: Yeah, but what about the unions?
Andrew: well, I don't have to respond to your points, the burden is on you to prove it to me, since all my friends at the cafe think the teachers unions are dandy.

This is generally how our discussions go, on any topic.

So back to Reagan.
Kevin: all people had their taxes reduced. It was an across the board cut.
Andrew: yes, but there was less opportunity for the poor.
Kevin: how so? the economy grew at record rates? Wages rose dramatically as did job opportunities. Unemployment was also at record lows.
Andrew: yes, but the relative rate paid by the poor increased.
Kevin: relative rate? who the F cares!! How does that effect the poor? Are ya daft, son?
Andrew: well, maybe a little, but usually just on weekends around closing time.
Kevin: the poor had lower rates...and more opportunity(growing economy). What more could you do for them?
Andrew: well, if we stuck it to the rich, then I'd feel better.
Kevin: nice as that would be, taxing the rich at those rates, 70%, had a disastrous impact on the economy. And because of it, the poor suffered. The only way they could improve their lot in life was by bribing their local politician.
Andrew: power to the people!
Kevin: millions of people worked there way from poverty to the middle class under this growing economy. You would rather that had not happened just so you can punish the rich?
Andrew: wanna drink my milkshake?
Kevin: I don't know what that means, but no thanks.

You see, Andrew would rather punish the rich even if it meant everyone else suffered too. Nothing satisfies like sticking it to the rich!

What he doesn't understand is that while his system of sticking it to the rich, while decreasing the "gap" between the rich and the poor, does something else. It locks the poor in place. And the rich. It makes the poor a permanent class dependent on the rich, with little chance of working their way up.

Who benefits from that? Well, the rich do, actually. But aside from that, there is someone else who does: the bureaucracy!

We need a mighty army of administrators to take the money from the rich and use it to run the world. We need managers to run the serfs, bosses to manage the plantation. And who are those bosses? Liberals! Of course, the wise and heroic government class who live to take care of the rest of us. And who got all the dachas in the Soviet Union? The government class! Good times!

Bert, I'll lay out the facts, and you decide, and please be honest, if this is a case of hindsight dot connecting.

1) the Libyan consulate and the embassador were protected by 5 Americans and 3 or 4 Libyans. There may have been more Libyan guards at the gate, but they abandoned ship. There was no forced entry. We don't even know if those protecting the ambassador were armed! Essentially, the consulate had no protection, despite the existence of well armed militia in the area.

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-consulate-light-security-154241257.html

2) Libya is one of the most violent places in the world, with numerous factions vying for power since the fall of Khaddafi, some al queda affiliated. Benghazi was one of the hotbeds for this violence.

3) this was 9/11

4) the ambassador and other embassy staff seemed to have been begging for more security. There were numerous incidents and attacks in the months leading up to this.

Now I ask you, is this the same as connecting the dots on 9/11? An unprotected consulate, on the anniversary of 9/11, in one of the most dangerous areas of the world, infested by al quada, and a place that has the spotlight of American foreign policy on it? If this happened under Bush, I'd be pissed.

But let's take the discussion further.

Why did the administration spend two weeks out and out lying about this? And is that relevant for the election?

The evidence is now firm: the admin has said for 2 weeks there was no prior intelligence. This is now shown to be a lie. They said the attack was a protest gone bad. It now seems there was not a protest at all, and the administration knew this within 24 hrs.

I want to address one more thing: the "hater" comment.

Were you a Bush hater? A Reagan hater?

I don't hate Obama. I would rather hang out with him than Romney. The guy brews beer!!(if that's true). When I watch Obama speak, I am inclined to like the guy. He has that effect on me. I couldn't stand John F'n Kerry, but Obama seems likable to me. He has a nice family, he seems like a cool guy.

It's what he is doing that I hate. What he wants to turn this country into.

It's like when someone sells you a car. You might like the salesman, and the free coffee, the friendly staff. But you have to take the blinders off to make sure he doesn't stick you with a lemon. Or Andrew's milkshake.

Quoted from kevin You see, Andrew would rather punish the rich even if it meant everyone else suffered too. Nothing satisfies like sticking it to the rich!

Right. 'Cos that's exactly my view. You cheapen yourself with some frivolous, sophomoric analysis.

I know that you have an entirely unjustified gargantuan regard for your own debating skills, but this is ridiculous:

Quoted from kevin Kevin: teachers unions are the primary reason for the destruction of the American school system. Andrew: why? Kevin: Because they make it impossible to fire bad teachers, and they encourage huge, inflexible bureaucracies that resist any attempt at change. Andrew: so says you. (Kevin provides a link to an award winning documentary establishing this and explains there are actually numerous other films and books on the subject) Andrew: well, that's just some crazy conservative. Kevin: no, actually it was a liberal reformer, and this is just what his research happened to find. CRICKETTS Andrew: so hows the weather over there? Kevin: fine. But what do you say to my points. Andrew: Bush lied, people died. Kevin: Yeah, but what about the unions? Andrew: well, I don't have to respond to your points, the burden is on you to prove it to me, since all my friends at the cafe think the teachers unions are dandy. This is generally how our discussions go, on any topic. So back to Reagan. Kevin: all people had their taxes reduced. It was an across the board cut. Andrew: yes, but there was less opportunity for the poor. Kevin: how so? the economy grew at record rates? Wages rose dramatically as did job opportunities. Unemployment was also at record lows. Andrew: yes, but the relative rate paid by the poor increased. Kevin: relative rate? who the F cares!! How does that effect the poor? Are ya daft, son? Andrew: well, maybe a little, but usually just on weekends around closing time. Kevin: the poor had lower rates...and more opportunity(growing economy). What more could you do for them? Andrew: well, if we stuck it to the rich, then I'd feel better. Kevin: nice as that would be, taxing the rich at those rates, 70%, had a disastrous impact on the economy. And because of it, the poor suffered. The only way they could improve their lot in life was by bribing their local politician. Andrew: power to the people! Kevin: millions of people worked there way from poverty to the middle class under this growing economy. You would rather that had not happened just so you can punish the rich? Andrew: wanna drink my milkshake? Kevin: I don't know what that means, but no thanks.

With all due respect, that reeks of immaturity. Really poor 'skipping town' when it gets to the nitty gritty. You do realise that it's more than just me baffled by your brand of tea party paranoia and nonsensical theorising on the economy and foreign affairs, right? The thread is peppered with people chiming in to voice bemusement at your ridiculous posting.

To be fair, I think I've had enough of your obtuse condescension when it's quite clear you're not smart - you're just ridiculous. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you're a man in his late 40s (or at least that's how old you look) and you post conspiratorial nonsense on a regular basis and then try to polish your reputation with paragraphs like the above. It's beyond absurd. Quite frankly, I feel sorry for you, I really do. I've attempted to engage you and reason with you with rational debate and you still default to nonsense like the above.

And the milkshake line is a reference to There Will Be Blood.

Let me make this real easy for you:

Quoted from myself Excuse me for acknowledging the elephant in the room, but everyone was not benefitting under Reagan, and they certainly wouldn't under Romney. Your point sounded good until I realised it was not true. On the wages thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif This is what Clinton was talking about with depressed wages in 1992 and why Romney "doesn't want to return to Reagan/Bush" - that sure was a funny quote in the Romney/Kennedy debate. I thought tax revenues (as per the Laffer curve) would increase commensurate with lower tax rates? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CBO_Revenues_Outlays_Percentage_GDP.svg&page=1 Reagan financed his 'miracle' with debt - lots of it. As you guys would say: period. Here's a debt chart for you: http://bit.ly/SFjLuQ All of those links are available on Wikipedia. Presumably you're aware this can be edited by both liberals and conservatives - and yet those stats stay there. Think on. I don't really know what you are saying when you talk of the Reagan miracle. It's kind of obtuse to even be having the discussion of whether or not income inequality grew under Reagan. It's kind of like banging my head against the wall. Check out the % of people living under the poverty line in the year Reagan entered and the year he left. Reagan shifted the tax burden. You think that's right. I think that's wrong. Romney seeks to shift the tax burden in the way Reagan did. You think that's right. I think that's wrong. I agree with Obama's view: you don't grow the economy by enriching the wealthy with tax cuts, but by empowering the middle class with increased spending power where they can't become indebted to the point it creates bubbles like that seen leading up to 2008. Fact is that the middle class have been iiving paycheck to paycheck for 30 years and struggling to make ends meet and keep your theory alive.

Contained therein are three links that blow to shreds your blind positing of Reagan growing the economy equitably. And please, for your own good, stop trying to present yourself as something you're not. It'll truly help you an awful lot.

Quoted from leitskev Bert, I'll lay out the facts, and you decide, and please be honest

Honest responses:

1) Dangerous circumstances, to be sure
2) But one of hundreds, really
3) But just another day, really
4) I will cold-heartedly scratch this one as barely relevant

Quoted from leitskev Now I ask you, is this the same as connecting the dots on 9/11?

Nope.  Not even close.

But my real point is the scenario itself.  It is so easy to pop up after the fact and criticize what somebody "should have seen coming."  I mean, how much stuff would any president have on their radar on any given day?

This was tragic, and maybe even predictable -- but it was not predetermined or certain by any means -- and exploiting this as an election year argument seems (to me) most unsavory.  That is the only reason I called you out on it.  I wish people would stop doing it.

As if Obama wanted it to happen and did it on purpose, you know?

Quoted from leitskev But let's take the discussion further.

OK, but not much further.  I really dislike getting too involved in these discussions.

Quoted from leitskev Were you a Bush hater?

Ha! In the interests of full disclosure -- yeah, big time.  His actions during his administration sickened me.  His defiantly uninformed stance on important scientific issues didn’t help, either.  Only because you asked, though, and ducking the question would be unseemly.  But that is not a discussion I will have here.

Maybe over a few milkshakes, though.

I really do not do politics over the internet.  I'm surprised I am even here at all.

Will get back to you later, Andrew, but you should know that several people have messaged support and encouragement. They stay out because they know full well how liberals are. Arguments cross quickly into personal insults, and usually into flights of fancy. As evidenced once again in your recent post.

What conspiracy have I ever proposed? No conspiracy is required for a bad philosophy to have a negative impact on peoples lives. It's just bad thinking, pure and simple.

Quoted from leitskev They stay out because they know full well how liberals are.

Stoppit!  



(But really, I think the generalizations are unfortunate).

The conservative party in Australia is the Liberals and I know full well how they are.

I just have not had any time to research so I can give you links. But I can discuss.

declining wages in the 1980s:

Labor is subject to the same forces of supply and demand as anything else. So if we have low unemployment, as we did in the 80s once the recession ended, this should lead to higher wages. Higher demand, higher prices.

Did this happen?

Well, we do have official statistics that seem to show declining real wages, something which persisted until the end of the 90s. What's going on?

Economists have always struggled to explain this. As with any macro statistical representation, numbers are subject to various interpretations. One thing virtually all serious economists agree on, even those that dislike the Reagan policies, is that these statistics are NOT a reflection of Reagan's policies.

Few people would argue that a booming economy and low unemployment would result in anything other than higher wages.

So how do we explain the stats?

Several possible explanations.

1) demographics: The children of baby boomers were hitting the job market, and younger people entering the work force make less.

2) technological innovation: technology has eliminated many mid-level jobs.

3) immigration: immigration reached numbers not seen since the 1920s. Immigrants make less money.

4) service economy: the long term trend of the US switching from industrial economy to a service economy.

I realize I have not probably satisfied your objection on lower wages. But common sense is almost irrefutable in this case. High growth in the economy and low unemployment clearly create pressure for higher wages, so most economists(not politically motivated ones, of course) agree that the decline in real wages is due to factors that are independent of economic policy and don't provide a relevant picture.

If I have time to research, I will look for links, but I have some stuff going on related to Nicholl's which is chewing up my time.

Regarding the laffer: your graph proves the effectiveness of the laffer curve!

Don't you see that?

Taxes were dramatically cut, across the board, yet revenue stayed more or less the same.

Now, that does leave the problem of the deficit. I'm a little surprised to hear this is a major concern of yours, and that being the case, I assume you are for Romney, since Obama's deficits make all previous ones look like nothing.

I am not arguing for the Reagan deficits being a good thing. They were mostly the result of compromise with Congress. They didn't cut discretionary spending, but they increased military spending, and implemented tax cuts. Thus a deficit.

If I have more time, I will try to research for sources.

NOTE: Chris, what can I tell you? I do get these messages from people. As a general rule, a conservative will argue politics with you, but then be happy to have a drink with you later. Many liberals, however, don't want to know someone once they find out they are even a little conservative. This may be generalizing, but it's also generally true.

This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.

FINAL NOTE: What is this crap, Andrew, of looking up someone's picture and then trying to disparage him based on age, or whatever you had in mind? What's wrong with you? You think because I few liberals support your position, surprise surprise, that justifies that? I am going to assume something got into you and you regret that. I'm not bothered by it, but disappointed in you.