Where's The Proof LibOffice of Mendocino Country Sheriff doubled their mrulism Works?

You know, the conservatives have seriously failed in this thread.

Good job calling out "librulism" as a failure - despite a ton of historical evidence that suggests otherwise - while simultaneously avoiding having to show us any historical evidence suggesting conservatism works at all.

Economics is supposed to be a science. Science relies on evidence. The evidence available is in our nation's history. No more weak, anecdotal, rhetoric filled assertions full of assumptions. Show me PROOF that conservatism really works. Show me! I've been searching all this time and as far as I can tell, it's really not there...
 
i'm afraid this thread was fatally flawed from its outset. how does one go about proving the success of any system or ideology? their failures may be glaring, but success can only be gauged by the legacy they leave behind. the better question to ask is what legacy would the tenets of modern liberalism leave if they were to be fully implemented.
 
Charlie Ventura said:
I've never been there but I have friends who have owned Saab cars. I don't recall seeing many Saabs on the road more than five years old. I owned a pair of stereo speakers made in Norway once ... the tweeters blew out within a few months and there were no replacement parts. I dated a girl from Denmark once. I'd say that of the three countries you mentioned, she was surely the highest quality product of the three.

Other than Saab automobiles and B&O turntables, can you name some really innovative products coming out of any of these countries? Also, comparing our 350 million population, our loose immigration policies, and the American history of personal liberty and independence, how do you think applying Norway, Denmark and Sweden's economic policies would work here? Could it be successfully applied here?

I can think of some "Progressive" advancements obtained by these countries: FREE healthcare. FREE childcare. FREE time off for family rearing. FREE subsidized housing. FREE this ... and FREE that.

In the meantime, 700 square foot condos and a diet of stinky fish abound. Oh ... and I forgot to mention that 70% income tax rate.
Click to expand...


in other words, paradise!
 
mame said:
it's funny because your OP sites poverty differences since 1980.

Well, my good sir, the early 1980's is when we first saw the Neo-classicals take hold in American politics. The rest of the world stuck with Kaynesian economic principles (the same ones who got us out of depression in the 30's). Inequality in America has sharply risen in this time frame, not due to liberals, but due to movement conservatism and a bunch of jackasses who thought they could rewrite how economics work based of the premise that they disproved Kaynesianism (they didn't).

Look it up. It's all there.
- Sen. Al Franken
Click to expand...



yes, our economy really sucked in the mid eighties through about 2000....yep, probably worst economy in the world...right on bro, keep talking!
 
jeff f said:
i heard dillon is playing at the wichovia....i have all his stuff....all the way back to 69 when he played at woodstock...
Click to expand...
You misspelled all that stuff on purpose , LOL. I know what you are trying to do, but hey if you supposedly are a student of something, you might want to know how to spell it first. Nothing says amateur to me more than misspelled words. I didn't correct him on the first 20 times he spelled it wrong, but its like when FDD berates people for using there when they should have used their. Everyone has those little things that irk them. If you are a shitty shitty speller I won't take note of it, not everyone can spell well, but if you spell almost everything correctly, know good sentence structure and have a clue but still insist on spelling it wrong, well maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Dylan did not play at Woodstock. Great try though.

Wachovia is now Wells Fargo.
 
I'm still waiting for some tangible proof that the agenda currently being pursued by the Republicans works...

Lets see, you have me down for misspelling a name. Good job.
yes, our economy really sucked in the mid eighties through about 2000....yep, probably worst economy in the world...right on bro, keep talking!
Click to expand...


Since 1980 we've had a recession in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2008. All but one were caused with Republicans in power and at fault (the "Reagan" recession of 1981 wasn't his fault).
 
Dan Kone said:
That should be a capital D on dude. Also the correct number is ~20% I believe.
Click to expand...
Dude, the US interest expense I posted was WRONG. I freely admit I was all wrong. According to the latest info the interest expense is actually 800 billion a year. 1.3 trillion is collected so its actually 61%, sorry for being so wrong.

Treasury%202.jpg
 
mame said:
I'm still waiting for some tangible proof that the agenda currently being pursued by the Republicans works...

Lets see, you have me down for misspelling a name. Good job.


Since 1980 we've had a recession in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2008. All but one were caused with Republicans in power and at fault (the "Reagan" recession of 1981 wasn't his fault).
[/B]
Click to expand...

Just because a President is in office does not mean his party is "In Power". Besides the President cannot spend tax payer dollars, only Congress has the purse strings, so blaming a president for all economic woes isn't helping much. I realize they are easy targets though.
 
NoDrama said:
Dude, the US interest expense I posted was WRONG. I freely admit I was all wrong. According to the latest info the interest expense is actually 800 billion a year. 1.3 trillion is collected so its actually 61%, sorry for being so wrong.

Treasury%202.jpg
Click to expand...

I've very skeptical about those numbers. I'm pretty sure it's around ~20%. I've never heard anyone claim it's over 30%, ever. Maybe that source is wrong. There is no way that is true.
 
Dan Kone said:
I've very skeptical about those numbers. I'm pretty sure it's around ~20%. I've never heard anyone claim it's over 30%, ever. Maybe that source is wrong. There is no way that is true.
Click to expand...

Yeah apparently I can't read the table. I did a whole bunch more searching and its actually between 400 billion and 500 billion per year, even the graph shows that, look at the dates on the bottom. $450 billion is only 31%. I was wrong, AGAIN!!
 
NoDrama said:
Yeah apparently I can't read the table. I did a whole bunch more searching and its actually between 400 billion and 500 billion per year, even the graph shows that, look at the dates on the bottom. $450 billion is only 31%. I was wrong, AGAIN!!
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have nothing of value to add to this anyways. I just wanted to get in on all the awesome spelling/grammar correcting action!
 
NoDrama said:
Dylan did not play at Woodstock. Great try though.

Wachovia is now Wells Fargo.
Click to expand...

not only did he not play at woodstock but his best stuff was put out way before that. you got most of my sarcasm but you did miss some of it. actually, i think that may have been one of my better posts ;)
 
mame said:
I'm still waiting for some tangible proof that the agenda currently being pursued by the Republicans works...

Lets see, you have me down for misspelling a name. Good job.


Since 1980 we've had a recession in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2008. All but one were caused with Republicans in power and at fault (the "Reagan" recession of 1981 wasn't his fault).
[/B]
Click to expand...

another dumb misconception of a lib.

recessions are natural economic phenom. the problem you libs have is you want to start throwing money at them and cause the to go on for longer than they should.

left to their own and market forces, they will correct themselves with minimal damage. thats why cutting taxes and getting the fuck out of the way is always the best remedy. get govt out of the way and let consumers figure which services, products etc, that they and their family need and are willing to pay for.
 
NoDrama said:
Just because a President is in office does not mean his party is "In Power". Besides the President cannot spend tax payer dollars, only Congress has the purse strings, so blaming a president for all economic woes isn't helping much. I realize they are easy targets though.
Click to expand...
It's really not that simple.

Black friday, in october of 1987 (towards the end of the Reagan years), the U.S. saw a huge stock market crash. George H.W. Bush took office in 1989 and wasn't really concerned with the weakness of the economy... For a while that seemed like a good idea, as consumer spending picked up in 1990 and it seemed for a bit that there would be no further ill effects on the economy. SO, he spent his time trying to balance to budget - after all, his fellow conservative had Reagan tripled the deficit from 1980-1988 - he cut spending and - in a comprimise - was forced to concede tax increases to the democratic congress. This broke a campaign promise (but that's not really important here)... Economic problems re-emerged in 1990.

So maybe George H.W. Bush didn't cause the 1991 recession but history shows that he definitely failed to solve the problem. Although later(during the Clinton years), the technology boom came and largely erased all of the issues with the economy from this time frame.

The 2001 recession was caused by Alan Greenspan's fed in a pointless battle against inflation (inflation was very low throughout the 90's all the way until present) the fed rose interest rates. As I've pointed out in other threads(maybe even this thread), Greenspan was Reagan's guy. On a related - and also previously mentioned note - Greenspan's actions during this time have been pointed to as a key cause of the 08 recession.

So, while it is true that the president isn't always to blame... George H.W. Bush only showed incompetence dealing with his economic crisis and Alan Greenspan - following conservative economic principles - essentially caused the 2001 and 2008 recessions. Therefore, my assertion that those recessions happened with Republicans in power is correct.

Allow me to point out that in that very same statement you quoted I said the 1981 recession wasn't Reagan's fault and as I've said before it was Fed chairman Volcker who created the recession of that time (he also is responsible for the recovery)... The difference between Volcker's war on inflation and Greenspan's was Volcker got a 10%+ core inflation measurement down to ~4%. By the time Greenspan decided to embark on his own war on inflation - inflation wasn't even a big problem - it was as low as 2%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top