Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

Ivytalk wrote:Stockman was outed as a donk in conk's clothing in about 1982.

CitadelGrad wrote:So, you agree with its criticism of Keynesianism? Why doesn't the article acknowledge that the last balanced budget occurred while Republicans controlled Congress? As soon as the federal budget is reduced by one dollar, you lefties will squeal like pigs.

kalm wrote:Cut spending, raise taxes on the rich, and vote em all out.

From the class of 09 wrote:

kalm wrote:Cut spending, raise taxes on the rich, and vote em all out.

While I don't have a problem with raising the taxes on the rich (definition needs defining) I also feel that it is unfair that 45ish % of Americans receive more in tax refunds then they pay in income tax. So if we are going to raise taxes on the rich then a much larger share of Americans need to at least pay something.

From the class of 09 wrote:

kalm wrote:Cut spending, raise taxes on the rich, and vote em all out.

While I don't have a problem with raising the taxes on the rich (definition needs defining) I also feel that it is unfair that 45ish % of Americans receive more in tax refunds then they pay in income tax. So if we are going to raise taxes on the rich then a much larger share of Americans need to at least pay something.

01lugrad wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:

While I don't have a problem with raising the taxes on the rich (definition needs defining) I also feel that it is unfair that 45ish % of Americans receive more in tax refunds then they pay in income tax. So if we are going to raise taxes on the rich then a much larger share of Americans need to at least pay something.

That's a fine idea, but think about it. That 45% of the population overwhelmingly votes democrat. No way the donks raise taxes on them. It is much easier to raise taxes on those evil, mean, nasty, demonic rich people. Funny how the idiots who listen to these dummies don't realize the politicians (who happen to be rich) don't care one iota about poor people, just their votes.

Ivytalk wrote:Stockman was outed as a donk in conk's clothing in about 1982.

houndawg wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:So, you agree with its criticism of Keynesianism? Why doesn't the article acknowledge that the last balanced budget occurred while Republicans controlled Congress? As soon as the federal budget is reduced by one dollar, you lefties will squeal like pigs.

If only them po' chirruns would give up their free lunch we wouldn't be in this financial mess.

CitadelGrad wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If only them po' chirruns would give up their free lunch we wouldn't be in this financial mess.

I knew it. The lefties' first defense against budget cuts is, "But what about the CHILDREN?". You're all so predictable.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Stockman was outed as a donk in conk's clothing in about 1982.

That's right about the time conk's figured out that deficits don't matter.

But I agree with '09 and Houndawg. More people should pay income tax, and $250,000 sounds too low.

Keep the taxes at a level where a fella can own a small business and several homes and provide upkeep for all of them. But once you aquire that 4th property you're either gonna have to pay the fiddler, mow the damn lawn yourself, or make do with only two vacation houses. Oh, and quit bitching about a country that has allowed you the luxury in the first place.

**** ingrates.

houndawg wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
I knew it. The lefties' first defense against budget cuts is, "But what about the CHILDREN?". You're all so predictable.

Says Mr. "You keep your school lunches and we'll keep our secure borders".

From the class of 09 wrote: ...it is unfair that 45ish % of Americans receive more in tax refunds then they pay in income tax. So if we are going to raise taxes on the rich then a much larger share of Americans need to at least pay something.

From the class of 09 wrote:
To solve this problem is when I start getting crazy ideas about requiring people to pay income taxes in order to vote….I know this is crazy but tell me what’s more nuts:

1) to allow people who don't pay taxes to vote and in effect tell others how to spend their money (most likely saying give it to them) or
2) only allow people who have a net income tax a vote since they are the only ones contributing to the funds being spent (just for a moment pretend congress budget depends on tax revenue)

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Stockman was outed as a donk in conk's clothing in about 1982.

That's right about the time conk's figured out that deficits don't matter.

But I agree with '09 and Houndawg. More people should pay income tax, and $250,000 sounds too low.

Keep the taxes at a level where a fella can own a small business and several homes and provide upkeep for all of them. But once you aquire that 4th property you're either gonna have to pay the fiddler, mow the damn lawn yourself, or make do with only two vacation houses. Oh, and quit bitching about a country that has allowed you the luxury in the first place.

**** ingrates.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's right about the time conk's figured out that deficits don't matter.

But I agree with '09 and Houndawg. More people should pay income tax, and $250,000 sounds too low.

Keep the taxes at a level where a fella can own a small business and several homes and provide upkeep for all of them. But once you aquire that 4th property you're either gonna have to pay the fiddler, mow the damn lawn yourself, or make do with only two vacation houses. Oh, and quit bitching about a country that has allowed you the luxury in the first place.

**** ingrates.

You really do have a chip on your shoulder, kalm. I pity you.