Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

A modest proposal

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:09 am, Sat Oct 13, 2012.

I would like to comment on John Herrick's letter published on Oct. 4, "Obama is not helping to improve the economy," where he said, "It is the typical liberal argument of grammar school logic and no facts."

Mr. Herrick said that to blame the Republicans for the 1929 crash just because the Republicans were in charge for the previous eight years is, in his words, "just plain weird." Mr. Herrick said the crash of 2008 was caused by the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House for six years and the presidency for eight years previously.

Our conservative Republican friends are always telling us that the only reason Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs and balanced the budget was through the efforts of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Just yesterday I was told that President Obama had nothing to do with the killing of bin Laden, but that it was a result of the Bush policies.

Oh, I see your superior logic now, Mr. Herrick. When the Democrats are nominally in charge the Republicans are really in charge, and vice versa. Obviously we should vote the Democrats in so the Republicans can really be in charge. We should do that because, historically, the facts are the economy does better and we create far more jobs. We also avoid the financial disasters that occur when the Republicans are elected, but the Democrats are really in charge.

Mr. Herrick, thank you for clearing it up for me.

John Lucas

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

135 comments:

  • John Lucas posted at 11:15 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell asks:

    I had asked him in a different post if he could please articulate how he calculated the saving?

    I replied to some of your question below but I will answer this one here. I will type real slow in hopes you understand for it has to do with arithmetic.

    Americas's health care costs in terms of GDP = 17.5%
    Single payer countries costs in terms of GDP = 12%
    Difference = 5.5%

    2011 GDP for United States = over 15 trillion dollars

    5.5% of 15 trillion dollars = over 750 billion dollars

    I am sure there are some 8th grade math classes you can audit if you do not quite get it.


     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:22 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell asks

    Does this mean that the the single payer system Obama has endorsed ( before he was president) is less expensive but still provides the same quality of service?

    If one defines quality of service as which system provides better medical outcomes then it does not provide the same quality of service but provides a BETTER QUALITY OF SERVICE.

    Darrell asks

    How are then expenses reduced?

    The first is that if we put everyone on Medicare the administrative costs would go from 20% the health insurance companies charge to less than 5%.

    The biggest saving come from preventive care and detecting illnesses early. When people feel sick they go to the doctor. People do not wait until the cost of curing something is astronomical they get early when the costs are small.

    People do not use the emergency room for their health care as Mr. Romney says we should do saving huge amounts of medical expenses.

    A huge saving is in that there is no court battle over who pays the doctor bills. This has a huge impact on a doctors malpractice insurance bringing its cost way down.

    Darrell asks

    England has 36 month waiting periods for surgeries for any one 65 or older. It saves billions of dollars as elderly die before they get the care they need, thus cutting expenses.. Are you saying the a single payer system in United States would mirror this cost saving strategy? If not, how will we save money?

    England ranks 18th on medical outcomes as opposed to our 37th but England is a socialist medical system as opposed to a single payer system. A single payer system takes the transfer of money from patient to healthcare provider out of the hands of the health insurance companies and puts it in a single source.This greatly reduces the administrative costs. The people who provide the medical service are in the private sector as opposed to the English system. A health care provider only has to deal with one entity as to a myriad of health insurance companies and government departments.

    Darrell says;

    England has 36 month waiting periods for surgeries for any one 65 or older. It saves billions of dollars as elderly die before they get the care they need, thus cutting expenses.

    This statement is typical of those opposed to single payer. They take a grain of truth and extrapolate it into a falsehood. There are waiting times but if England is killing off their elderly to save money how do you explain that the English live longer than Americans do? We rank 51st and they rank 30th in the world.

    English 80.17
    United States 78.49

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:03 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I do not know about all these things you are bringing up to change the subject but thank for conceding the following facts about our health system based on your wonderful Conservative ideology.

    America pays 17.5% of our GDP as opposed to 12% which is the average that single payer countries pay.

    Americans pay 750 billion dollars extra every year for the privilege of having a health system based on Conservative ideology

    The WHO ranks the United States 37th in terms of medical outcomes.

    The CIA say we rank 51st in life expectancy.

    Millions of people live in fear of having a major health crisis because they cannot afford health insurance as opposed to people in those countries with a cheaper, more efficient single payer system

    Millions have gone bankrupt because of a major health crisis as opposed to people in those countries with a cheaper, more efficient single payer system

    The countless number of people who have died because they did not have health insurance as opposed to those countries with a cheaper, more efficient single payer system

    The millions who live in pain and are suffering because they cannot afford heath insurance as opposed to people in those countries with a cheaper, more efficient single payer system

    Our businesses struggle with financial burden of trying to do the right thing by providing health insurance thus hurting their ability to compete in the global market as opposed to those countries with a cheaper, more efficient single payer system

    We get to be the laughing stock of the world because of the mindless stupidity of our health system.

    As you are unable to counter any of these arguments perhaps you have a brother, a sister or a fellow Conservative who can.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:00 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    For reasons I cannot understand, Mr Lucas has declined to help in understanding the conclusions he has drawn based on his knowledge of how the single payer systems operate and save countries money.

    He suggests we transform America into a country that liberalism would create. Part of his solution is national health care run by the Federal government. I agree with Mr Lucas that health care costs are too high and need to be reduced in a dramatic way. However, I was hoping he could substantiate his claims so others can be comfortable in implementing such a dramatic change in health care .

    I had asked him in a different post if he could please articulate how he calculated the saving? He however declined to provide his findings. How unfortunate that someone who has the answers decides not to share them. Maybe he can reconsider and share the wealth of knowledge we so desperately need in order to chart our pathway to success.

    May I ask Mr Lucas, why will you not share what you know? Are you writing a book and want to keep it under wraps until then?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:45 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated... Darrell our health system is based on your stated principles and costs us 750 billion dollars more than any of the single payer systems in the modern democracies...

    then Mr Lucas stated... Is watching people die, suffer and go bankrupt worth it to you? Is it worth having worse medical outcomes and a lower life expectancy?

    Response... Such a profound thought Mr Lucas articulates? I am of course unable to comprehend it all, but it brings up questions. Hopefully, Mr Lucas has the answers.

    1. Does this mean that the the single payer system Obama has endorsed ( before he was president) is less expensive but still provides the same quality of service?

    2. How are then expenses reduced? Are doctors paid less? Are nurses paid less? Is the doctor and nurse patient to provider ration increased? Are the construction expenses to build hospitals less there than here? Are law suites suppressed so that wrongful deaths do not pay out millions like in United States?

    3. England has 36 month waiting periods for surgeries for any one 65 or older. It saves billions of dollars as elderly die before they get the care they need, thus cutting expenses.. Are you saying the a single payer system in United States would mirror this cost saving strategy? If not, how will we save money?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:02 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas, I understand that you are a busy man and any time you can spare to shed light on such complex issues is a benefit to all, but , why would you tell Mr Leopold that from reading his posts you think he would consider the Canada and Japan socialist because they have national health care?

    That means you have concluded that there is a relationship between national health care and socialism. I am surprised that you would make such a statement then not explain why you perceive that to be true... it is why I asked you...

    1. Is a country leaning towards capitalism or socialism when they have a single payer health care system in place?
    2. Do citizens of a country have more or less individual freedoms when Federal government has much power to enforce rules, regulations and mandates? By increasing these powers that result in individual states having less power, does this lean toward socialism or not?Why?
    3. Is a country gravitating toward socialism when the government gains strength and power to influence the everyday life of individuals? Why?
    4. Lastly, can you please share what your sister, Cynthia Neely, perceives is the definition of a socialist country? As a local leader of democratic party causes and the liberal establishment, we could all learn from her experiences and expertice.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:52 am on Thu, Oct 18, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people

    Great quote! I have to admit my mind is not great according to the definition Mr Lucas sets. It is why I so much appreciate when he and his sister Cynthia Neely write letters that address ideas and thoughts.

    I am looking forward to the day when these two authorities on liberalism and the results it produces can team up and share and discuss their ideas so that people like me who do not have the ability to understand what they do can learn from them.

    I would love them to address many things, such as how liberalism specifically motivates businesses to expand and grow, create jobs... how it drives the economy... so many things we could learn if they only shared what they know. President Obama I' m sure would be as grateful as I.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:58 pm on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726


    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:41 pm on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Like I said, I am not qualified to dispute anything you say. You are too modest Mr Lucas. I seriously doubt that anyone could refute anything you conclude is a fact. So of course I passed on the discussion since... nothing I could say could possibly add value to your perceived truth... Once you have said it, the debate is over.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:32 pm on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr. Lucas stated...Do not say what I am saying is not true. The facts speak for themselves. They are back by mountains of studies.

    Mr. Lucas, I am not qualified to evaluate and conclude if you are wrong. Clearly, I have more questions than answers and must rely on people like you who obviously are above my ability to comprehend. Now that you have stated facts speak for themselves and that there are mountains of study, the debate is over and you once again substantiated truth beyond doubt...

    Again, Lodi is blessed to have a scholar in its mist. Ell two scholars if you include your sister, Cynthia Neely. I still hope you ask her to write more articles where she makes clear how Republicans are like the Taliban and conservatives are the cause of real problems in our country. Truth is valuable and the two of you can articulate it so well…

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:18 pm on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Why Mr Lucas, Im surprised. As a proud democratic party leader who articulates liberal policies that work so well, you would think Cynthia Neely and you would even write joint columns . Two brillient minds are better than one.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:54 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell our health system is based on your stated principles and costs us 750 billion dollars more than any of the single payer systems in the modern democracies. Is watching people die, suffer and go bankrupt worth it to you? Is it worth having worse medical outcomes and a lower life expectancy? Do not say what I am saying is not true. The facts speak for themselves. They are back by mountains of studies.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:31 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    17.5%

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell, that is something you might want to find out. One thing is for sure. THEY ALL KEEP THIER HEALTH COSTS TO UNDER 12% WHILE WE SPEND 17/5%.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:22 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...There have been many books written on all of your questions. I will comment on number 1 and 6

    Yes, but until you write your book, truth with not be complete!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    no

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas shared...We spend 17.5% of our GDP on health care. The average of countries with single payer spends 12% of their GDP. Our GDP last year was a little over 15 trillion dollars. The math says if we did as the average country with single payer we would save 750 billion dollars a year, every year.

    I am confused again and need your help in clarification? Thank you in advance!

    Are you stating that each country has the same exact variables that make up the cost factors that determine what percentage of GDP is spent on healthcare?

    For example, the Mental Health Parity Act, implemented during the Obama Administration, increased dramatically what is covered for mental health claims. All major mental health conditions are now covered as any other illness where prior to this act had a 90 limitation. With mental health costs between 60-80,000 per month per inpatient with unlimited durations, it added significantly to what we spend. Are you saying you have documented proof that other countries with single payer systems have exact same cost structure as ours?

    In addition, can you address tort concerns? Our legal system generates billions in legal fees and law suit awards as it relates to medical care. In addition, most doctors in USA pay over 100,000 per year in errors and omissions fees to protect themselves from law suits. All this adds to was is spent on GDP...

    Can you please articulate how you calculated the saving? Was healthcare rationing included in your analysis? Your wisdom is invaluable.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:15 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mr Baumbach said:

    I cannot imagine anyone could possibly refute anything you said with any degree of seriousness.

    I am sure that many could but you are not in that group. I put numbers, arguments and ideas on the table. You had an opportunity to engage in a rational argument about my math and those arguments and ideas. As usual you passed and talked about people

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:05 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas observed... From reading your posts I think you would consider the following countries socialist because they have national health care..

    then later stated... Whether a country is leaning toward socialism when they have a single payer health care system I will leave to you but where it is applied it is certainly cheaper, has better outcomes and is in line with the values of Jesus of Nazareth

    Can you please clarify. Please grace us with your perspective.
    I assumed that you had thought through the concept of a relationship between socialism and national health care since you stated the above to Mr Leopold. This is why I was hoping for the benefit of your thoughts since it came from you. I am not sure if there is a relationship as you implied ; this is above my level of comprehension. Can you please help out?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:53 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Thank you Mr Lucas for the education. I cannot imagine anyone could possibly refute anything you said with any degree of seriousness. Clearly, you are enlightened. After you clarify economic principles from your perspective ,there is little left to discuss.

    Lodi is blessed.

    Hopefully, Your sister Cynthia Neely, guest columnist for LNS, will share her expertise in liberalism and the democratic party she represents as we can only benefit from the wisdom she possesses... You both seem to be a dynamic tag team of liberal principles and how they benefit society. Conservatives every where must be astonished and envious of your abilities.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:09 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    There have been many books written on all of your questions. I will comment on number 1 and 6

    Any inquiries on my sisters positions or ideas please address to her. Your bringing her up in posts directed at me is a waste of your time

    Whether a country is leaning toward socialism when they have a single payer health care system I will leave to you but where it is applied it is certainly cheaper, has better outcomes and is in line with the values of Jesus of Nazareth.

    We spend 17.5% of our GDP on health care. The average of countries with single payer spends 12% of their GDP. Our GDP last year was a little over 15 trillion dollars. The math says if we did as the average country with single payer we would save 750 billion dollars a year, every year.

    The WHO ranks the United States 37th in terms of medical outcomes. This in spite of spending more overall and per capita.

    The CIA say we rank 51st in life expectancy. The fact that millions in our country cannot afford health coverage is the ultimate death panel.

    Of course there are many freedoms we get not going single payer. and I am sure you agree it is worth the extra 750 billion dollars a year.

    We get to feel superior to the millions of people who live in fear of having a major health crisis because they cannot afford health insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure

    We get to feel superior to the millions who have gone bankrupt because of a major health crisis. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to feel superior to those who die because they do not have health insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to feel superior to those who live in pain and are suffering because they cannot afford heath insurance. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to watch Health insurance executives make millions of dollars running companies that make the DMV look efficient. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to watch our businesses struggle with financial burden of trying to do the right thing by providing health insurance thus hurting their ability to compete in the global market. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    We get to be the laughing stock of the world because of the mindless stupidity of our health system. Those in countries with single payer do not get this pleasure.

    And to think we only have to pay an extra 750 billion dollars a year, every year, for not going to that terrible, awful socialist single payer system


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:47 am on Wed, Oct 17, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas, please share your expertise of what you think a socialist country is? Clearly a dictionary definition is not as useful as what you would offer. Also, please have more compassion for Mr Leopold and myself as we do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend exactly what you really are talking about. You deal in complexities that requires scholarly knowledge that you have and you should have a understanding that others simply cannot keep up with you. Can you please simplify.

    Maybe you could respond to questions and enlighten all.

    1. Is a country leaning towards capitalism or socialism when they have a single payer health care system in place?
    2. Do citizens of a country have more or less individual freedoms when Federal government has much power to enforce rules, regulations and mandates? By increasing these powers that result in individual states having less power, does this lean toward socialism or not?Why?
    3. Is a country gravitating toward socialism when the government gains strength and power to influence the everyday life of individuals? Why?
    4. Lastly, can you please share what your sister, Cynthia Neely, perceives is the definition of a socialist country? As a local leader of democratic party causes and the liberal establishment, we could all learn from her experiences and expertice.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 3:56 pm on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    MALARKEY

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:06 pm on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mike Leopold said:
    Again, is there a liberal out there that can show where a re-distributive socialist economy has thrived in any country ever in history? As long as this question is ignored, the answer will be clear.

    Though I have asked for your definition of a socialist country you have not done so. From reading your posts I think you would consider the following countries socialist because they have national health care.

    Canada
    Japan
    Australia
    Germany
    Norway
    Sweden
    Denmark
    England
    the list goes on. Just about every developed country in the world

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:57 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    You are right that he is not my mothers or my grandfathers type of Liberal. I do not consider Obama a liberal and neither would they. He is really a Nelson Rockefeller type Republican. A liberal would not have settled for a Republican plan like Obamacare but have went to a single payer system. A Liberal would not have put someone like Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury but someone like Paul Krugman. A liberal would have broken up the big banks and demanded a return to Glass Steagall as payment for the bailout.
    He is not a Liberal but he is miles ahead of Mitt Romney. If Mitt is elected and gets his policies through the congress it will be a short time before we will have a crash that makes 2008 look like an economic boom.

    It is really very simple. If all your policies are for shoving all the national income toward the top 1% there will come a time when the companies they own will fail for the lack of customers

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 11:31 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    I do agree with 2 and 3. I also understand that my philosophy and yours are different, and I completely respect you for it. I do respect the 20% of the country that considers themselves liberal, as do I respect the 40% that call themselves conservative (year after year this polling is consistent). However, if people want to keep propping Obama up as a kind, nice liberal that wants to help the middle class and poor, they should do some research on the facts of his up bringing. He is a socialist. If re-elected, and no 3rd term to run for, the country will see his true colors shine. Again, if you support socialism, fine, I'll respect that. If not, you should read up on Obama. Understand how and where he was raised. Learn what he believes in. I have read and watched a tremendous amount about him. He is not your grampa's democrat/liberal. Don't take my word for it. Research his past.

    And with that, I will get out of the way so you all can continue to discuss who said meaner things to who, rather than discuss the serious grave danger we are in if this man is re-elected.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:36 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mike, do us a favor. I know you like to give us a parade of right wing talking points but could you try to stick to one idea so we can discuss them one at a time?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:31 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Your welcome

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:31 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Your welcome

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:30 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Please give us your definition of a socialist country. This is a dictionary definition of socialism.

    socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm| noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

    There is no one here advocating this so your question is not really germane to the conversation.

    By the way I added your name to the list of people who could not answer my question. Like the others you ignored it. I will repeat it

    Name a country that has a large middle class that did not follow these policies.

    1. A highly progressive income tax
    2. Labor laws evening the playing field between employer and employee
    3. Effective financial regulation
    4 Employs Keynesian economics

    Those are Liberal ideas that when coupled with a market economy produces miracles.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 10:19 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    "The wealthy should be made to share in their wealth with those that truly need the money."

    OK. So let's just apply that across the board...

    The student that stayed at home and studied for the test get's an 'A'. Another student doesn't study and gets an 'F'. In the new world of sharing, the student's 'wealth of knowledge' is 'made' to be shared with those who are less fortunate in the knowledge aspect of their life. The teacher will give them both a "C" for fairness.

    What? Your neighbor makes more $ than you? He has his own gardner, while you have to do yours yourself? That's not fair. He should take care of your yard, too.

    Some children will work harder to make the team in their favorite sport. Some children miss practice and don't try as hard, but want to be a starter. In the new world of fairness, the child that has a 'wealth of sporting skills' will be made to concede to the child who is less fortunate. Result, the incentive is lost.

    Why work harder for something if it is just going to be determined that your have too much "wealth" of anything in life. Everyone is born in America with the opportunity to be great, and achieve anything they work hard for... just ask Obama.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 8:53 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    "The wealthy should be made to share in their wealth with those that truly need the money."

    So, who should enforce this? Sounds like something Karl Marx would say.

    When you take away the incentive for people to strive for success, by telling them that the government will take from them what they earn to give to those who have not earned it, people will not strive for success any longer.

    If you make X amount of money per year, and were given an opportunity to double your income by harder work, longer hours, and more education, would you do it?
    What if you were told that doubling your income would result in the government taking more of your earned income to re-distribute to others (in the name of fairness) who do not have your work ethics? Most people won't have incentive or initiative to put in the extra effort to earn more if it is going to be taken away from them.

    "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you will run out of other people's money" -- Margaret Thatcher

    You can only 'tax the millionaires and billionaires' one time. After that, they will stop investing and growing the economy. They will still have plenty of money to live on. They will simply have no incentive to expand or grow.

    Once the liberal agenda reaches their goal of leveling the playing field on the mean rich people, who will have the resources to 're-distribute' to the have nots?

    Again, is there a liberal out there that can show where a re-distributive socialist economy has thrived in any country ever in history? As long as this question is ignored, the answer will be clear.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 8:45 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Sorry Joanne, as usual you are wrong again.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:20 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...There has never been a country that has a large, vibrant middle class that did not follow the following four polices
    1. A highly progressive income tax
    2. Labor laws evening the playing field between employer and employee
    3. Effective financial regulation
    4 Employs Keynesian economics
    I have asked this time and time again. Name a country that has a large middle class that did not follow these policies. Mr Chapman, Mr Baxter, Mr Baumbach, Mr Kinderman, Mr. Dockter all have failed do come up with one.

    Again, this is irrefutable. Mr Lucas is an economic scholar that understands the complexity and variables that make an economy success or failure... no one can possible dispute his findings which is why everyone has failed to succeed in refuting Mr Lucas and his challenge.
    Yes, these four pillars determine the economic results and has proven beyond a shadow of doubt to produce positive economic results.
    I am very thankful that Mr Lucas exposed the folly of conservative policies and principles.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:10 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...If you think that we should concentrate the wealth of the country in a few hands then Ronald ...Reagan is your man.

    Exactly! Mr Lucas hit the nail on the head. This clearly demonstrates the sinister cruelty that all conservatives like Reagan had that made up their character. Imagine how bad a person would have to be to have a desire to make the rich richer while all along ignoring the poor. They have no compassion. These republicans as Mr Lucas states are beyond redemption and need to transform into a kinder and gentler being. The wealthy should be made to share in their wealth with those that truly need the money.

    As Mr Lucas stated, America does need to be transformed. The wealthy will do just fine no matter what. Certainly, they should share in what they gained while standing on the backs of people who suffer. Reagan Republicans support the wealthy without considering the less fortunate. As President Obama has so compassionately stated, these greedy wealthy conservatives need to share the wealth they acquired in an unfair way, so that liberalism can shine the light on fairness and compassion.

    I am thankful that Mr Lucas is here to set the record straight.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:56 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2915

    The most common examples we see of the false left-right paradigm in Western politics are Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberal vs. Conservative, and as the term suggest Left wing vs. Right wing. Nowhere is the dynamic tension more apparent then what we see in the mainstream news. Many times, we see video clips of congressional debates or talk radio rants criticizing one group over another but once the cameras are gone, the doors are closed, the real nature of their relationships are revealed. A good example of this was the issue of raising the debt ceiling. When no one was quite as concerned about it there was a consensus between the two parties that it would have to happen. However, just as little as five months later the Republicans made a spectacle of it. This was nothing more then a dog and pony show because Harry Reid said earlier, “I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt…They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt.” So there we have it, they knew they had to do this, they knew the Democrats had taken the dissension last time, and it was the Republicans turn to do the same. The false paradigm performs this same theatrics on any issue they want to steer. One side plays the “good guys” and the other side plays the “bad guys” depending on whose turn it is.

    If we were to put forth a concise definition, it might read something like this:

    “A false left-right paradigm is a political stratagem that uses people’s natural propensity to belong to a like-minded group to drive public opinion and to change policies and laws to benefit their handler’s interests.”

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    You really should do some research before you try to claim Texas as a worse alternative to California.

    AUSTIN - Texas lost hundreds of thousands of jobs last year as it stumbled through the deep national recession. But the state is likely to shine as the nation's economic growth leader over the next decade, according to research and forecasting firm IHS Global Insight.

    Payroll employment in Texas is expected to expand 1.8 percent next year, tied for No. 1 nationally with Nebraska, according to the firm's projections.

    The state's expected 2.2 percent annual job growth rate between 2010 and 2016 is also tied for first, but with Idaho, according to the firm.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20101109-Texas-likely-to-lead-nation-in-6085.ece

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    It is very well known that California is one, if not the most liberal state in the country. Highest tax rates. Brown wants to raise them again to pay for billions in deficits. Environmentalists have our gas prices $ .75 higher than the national average. Again, liberal policies are drowning this state.

    As for Obama getting things done.... His first 2 years he had the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled entirely by his party. The last 2 years, he had the Senate. He could have done whatever he wanted in the first 2 years. Instead of fixing the economy with his brilliant liberal policies, he used that time to pass a healthcare law that still to this day is unfavorable to a majority of the country.

    I also asked the question earlier:

    Can anyone give an example of a country that benefited from a socialist government?

    I assume I will get no response to this all day.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:00 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Surely "Mr. Leopold" jests. Ronald Reagan (Republican) took office in 1967 - 45 years ago. In the span between then and now we've had a total of 14 years of Democratic governors - Brown, Davis, and Brown again.

    If you are blaming a Democratic legislature for dominating 31 years of Republican rule in the governor's office, then you are indicting Reagan, Deukmejian, Wilson and Schwarzenegger as ineffective.

    Also bolsters the case for President Obama not being able to get anything done in Congress with the Republican majority stacked against him.

    Which is it "Mr. Leopold?"

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:52 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    There has never been a country that has followed the policies of the modern day Republican party that did not end up with a disaster. 2008 just being the latest

    I have said this many times but it bears repeating.

    There has never been a country that has a large, vibrant middle class that did not follow the following four polices

    1. A highly progressive income tax
    2. Labor laws evening the playing field between employer and employee
    3. Effective financial regulation
    4 Employs Keynesian economics

    I have asked this time and time again. Name a country that has a large middle class that did not follow these policies. Mr Chapman, Mr Baxter, Mr Baumbach, Mr Kinderman, Mr. Dockter all have failed do come up with one. You, Mr Leopold, will be the latest. There are no countries, now or ever, that have created a strong, vibrant middle class exclusively using Tea Party or Conservative Republican ideas but every country in the world that has one uses the policies I have listed above. That is the harsh reality, That is the hard facts. Guess what Mr Leopold? Those are Liberal ideas that when coupled with a market economy produces miracles.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:48 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Mr. Chapman wrote: "I am thinking more along the lines that you were warned by LNS to straighten up or they would exile you from posting."

    Sounds like you have had this experience yourself, Mr. Chapman. I DON'T wonder why.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:34 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Texas..... 20 years of Republican rule, on the verge of bankruptcy. City after city is going bankrupt on their way to dragging down the entire state. How has that Conservative thing been working for you there?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:29 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Words have meanings. Obama is not a socialist. America does need to be transformed so what happened in 2008 does not happen again. 2008 was a result of Conservative Republican thinking, policies and management. They had complete power for 6 years, the presidency for the next two and 2008 was the result.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 6:23 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    California..... 40 years of democrat rule, on the verge of bankruptcy. City after city is going bankrupt on their way to dragging down the entire state. How has that liberalism thing been working for you here?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:23 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I did not say Ronald Reagan was sinister or evil or intended to harm our country. Sadly his ideology and policies most certainly have hurt our country if you think having a strong, vibrant middle class is important. If you think that we should concentrate the wealth of the country in a few hands then Ronald
    Reagan is your man.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 6:18 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    Can anyone give an example of a country that benefited from a socialist government? America has been a free market capitalist country since its founding. That is what has made it exceptional. Point to any country in the world that has prospered like us through central government socialist policies.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:13 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...The central problem since Ronald Reagan has been the killing of the golden goose

    Irrefutable fact, Reagan was sinister and intended harm on our country. Even though he is dead, his policies and very existence was a stain on our otherwise wonderful history. I never wish to speak badly of the dead, but, he was such a bad influence on our country that it cannot be helped.
    Thank goodness we have people like Mr Lucas who can bring document and articualte history as it actually was. Thank you for you valuable effort Mr. Lucas.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:03 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Leopold stated...Liberalism will be the death of America as we once knew it.

    If people support Obama because they agree with his socialist, anti-capitalist agenda that in his words are to 'fundamentally transform the United States of America', then fine... just say so. However, if people support him but argue that he is not trying to destroy capitalism to replace it with a socialist society


    Then Mr Chang stated... You make that sound like a bad thing??

    Then Mr Heuer stated... Exactly!

    response... clearly, Mr Lucas and his fellow liberal thinkers are on the right track... America needs to be transformed into something else. Since only liberalism offers economic solutions, this transformation based in Obamaconomics will make America what it should have been all along.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:14 am on Tue, Oct 16, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    The central problem since Ronald Reagan has been the killing of the golden goose, the greatest middle class the world has ever seen. It has been a death of a thousand cuts. It is ironic that those who owe their wealth to its existence have been at the forefront in promoting policies leading to its demise. If you look at a chart of the productivity gains of the American worker and the increase of the total share of the top 1% of the national income in the last 30 years you will notice the benefit of those gains have gone to the top while the income of the average worker has been stagnant or since George Bush has gone down. Look at some of the policies and actions of the modern day Conservative Republican party.

    They are totally against unions. When in power they ignore labor laws

    When in power they deliberately push through tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitting the top 1% paying for them by borrowing from many including the social security trust fund. This theft taking money from the trust fund and funneling it to the top 1% may be legal but is a moral crime.

    These federal tax cuts have forced states to raise taxes and increase fees to make up revenue lost from federal sources. While the tax cuts have been a boon to the top 1% the tax burden on the middle class as a percentage of their income has actually gone up. These tax increases come in the form of increase tuition rate for college for example.

    The years of Republican financial mismanagement, the gutting of financial regulation and deliberately increasing the national debt led to the near collapse of the financial system and the biggest recession since the great depression has forced us to spend even more money to keep the ship afloat. The massive loss of jobs has further depressed the demand for labor.

    The Republicans showed their true colors by holding middle class tax cuts off the table unless the tax cuts for the wealthy were included. The Republican house refused to hold separate votes, one for middle class tax cuts and one for the wealthy tax cuts.

    Electing Mitt Romney will only put off the day of reckoning. He will just continue to bring policies that will in the end destroy the golden goose, the middle class.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:41 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1295

    Exactly

    [smile]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:39 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1295

    Mr Leopold says in his rather apocalyptic tone "we are at $16.2 trillion and we haven't even reached the end of Obama's 4th year." then "Liberalism will be the death of America as we once knew it. If people support Obama because they agree with his socialist, anti-capitalist agenda that in his words are to 'fundamentally transform the United States of America'."

    First
    Obama Deficits have been going down. He is the first president to lower the deficit each year of his term.Jobs (private sector) have been rising every year.
    FY 2013*: $901 billion
    FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    FY 2011: $1,300 billion
    FY 2010: $1,293 billion

    By contrast Bush Deficits
    FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
    FY 2008: $459 billion
    FY 2007: $161 billion

    Your worries come under my lists of conservative hysterias as in your case socialism. If we have any socialism it will be American socialism complete with a free market and lots of private ownership. A long ways from pure socialism that has never existed anywhere. And it will never happen here. We will have some socialistic programs but that is not socialism. I am not afraid of socialistic movement. It will never gor to the extreme of socialism. Get a grip.

    We are more threatend by conservative objectives of destroying medicare, social security, womens health and right to choose, insane fiscal policies of giving more deficit raising tax breaks for trhe rich, further break down of the middle class, rejection of intellectual/scientific findings, limiting access to education, reckless policies that promote costly war, and on and on. This would be your scary transformation of America as we know it. Obama is not trying to destroy America. Forget your stupid "Obama 2016" movie. It was made specificly for gullible people. Find a way to ground yourself in reality.I encourage you to rethink your position and vote for Barak Obama. I know I am. Romney is a loser. Just look at his record in Massachusetts.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 8:40 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    "Liberalism will be the death of America as we once knew it"

    You make that sound like a bad thing??

    [huh]

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 7:56 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    Liberalism will be the death of America as we once knew it.

    If people support Obama because they agree with his socialist, anti-capitalist agenda that in his words are to 'fundamentally transform the United States of America', then fine... just say so. However, if people support him but argue that he is not trying to destroy capitalism to replace it with a socialist society, you need to educate yourself. Ignorance is no excuse.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:23 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr. Lucas stated... The problem is that you are not taking into consideration the massive blow the economy took after 8 years of Republican policies

    How can anyone possibly refute this point, clearly, the republicans stand alone and isolated in causing economic disaster. This thread should stop now with this illuminating pearl of wisdom as a thought that defines a certain reality.
    That reality is as Mr. Lucas so artfully articulated... All economic success in America is a result of liberal policies and all economic failures in America are a result of conservative policies… words of wisdom to bank on. Thank you John for making clear just how things work!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:08 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mr Chapman said:

    I am thinking more along the lines that you were warned by LNS to straighten up or they would exile you from posting.

    Nope did not happen

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 5:52 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    I am thinking more along the lines that you were warned by LNS to straighten up or they would exile you from posting.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 5:07 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    :...for the economy can only take so much of conservative policies before it will completely collapse."

    How much re-distribution of wealth and expansive federal government control through socialist policies will it take to collapse our economy? Obama is pursuing the Cloward-Piven strategy with his economic agenda. Read the history of Obama. Research his past and his associations. Research his family and mentors. They are rooted in communism. That is fact. Read about Frank Marshall Davis, who is at the least his childhood mentor, at worst his real father. Frank was mentioned in "Dreams of my Father". He is a registered communist. David Axelrod was born to a mother who was a registered communist. Vallerie Jarrett was born to communist parents. It is documented. People need to actually do some research about this man before you lay down for him. Obama says he wants to re-distribute wealth. He wants a single-payer government healthcare system. He owns half of GM.

    If people support Obama because they agree with his socialist, anti-capitalist agenda that in his words are to 'fundamentally transform the United States of America', then fine... just say so. However, if people support him but argue that he is not trying to destroy capitalism to replace it with a socialist society, you need to educate yourself. Ignorance is no excuse.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 4:53 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    I don't know of anyone that has called Bush fiscally conservative. By the way, nice communist photo for your picture, Walter.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:07 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    The stimulus was budgeted over several years and was not in the Bush budget

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:03 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    The problem is that you are not taking into consideration the massive blow the economy took after 8 years of Republican policies. The effects of the massive job losses, the unpaid wars, the unpaid prescription benefits, the near collapse of our financial system is going to take time to fix. It is not like George bush and the Republicans who inherited an economy that was in much better shape.When you lose 8 million jobs there is a huge drop in revenue and a outgoing of money going to help those who lost their jobs with unemployment benefits, medicaid etc. President Obama is slowly fixing this but it will take time. You elect Mitt Romney and he will bring back the same policies that have led us into the 2008 disaster except this time it will make 2008 look like boom times for the economy can only take so much of conservative policies before it will completely collapse.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 3:52 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1835

    Robert posted:
    "Clinton lied and continues to lie about his "surplus" thinking citizens are too stupid to figure it out. Apparently, some are."
    Apparently you are very correct in that assumption, as witnessed by responses to your post. Poor liberals want to believe soooo bad.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 3:44 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    "The budget deficit at the end of the last Bush budget was 10.699 trillion dollars."


    Yeah, and with that said, we are at $16.2 trillion and we haven't even reached the end of Obama's 4th year. That's more debt then Bush added in 8 years. Again, I'm not claiming that Bush was a fiscal hawk, but how can liberals continue to defend Obama's reckless spending?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:43 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    If the national debt was $5.72 trillion the day Bush took office, and was $10.62 trillion the day he left, how can anyone claim he was a conservative??

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

    [wink]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:27 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    An easier chart for the national debt is:

    http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    No one is saying that he had a budget surplus for 8 years. His last year in office he did have a budget surplus.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    Don't forget that Obama added his $900 billion stimulus bill to the 2009 budget, so don't act as if he isn't responsible for most of that deficit in his first year. Nice try.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:22 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Bush was not a fiscal Conservative. At least we agree on something. Was Ronald Reagan a fiscal Conservative? In terms of percentage increase of the national debt he was the worst in American history. In terms of annual increase in the national debt5 he was the worst in history. If adjust for inflation he put nearly as much as George bush did which was 5.037 trillion dollars. The real question is are Conservative Republicans fiscally conservative? If you look at their record the answer is obviously no.

    Your trying to blame the congress for the debt in the Bush years is lame at best.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 3:14 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    If the national debt was $4.12 trillion the day Clinton took office, and was $5.7 trillion the day he left, how can anyone claim he had a surplus?

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:11 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I think those in charge are trying to cut down on the name calling.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:09 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    "January 20, 2001 (Bush's 1st day in office) National debt = $5.73 trillion"

    January 20, 2009 (Obama's 1st day in office) National debt = $10.62 trillion

    [beam]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:07 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Obama has been running the Government since 2009. The last Bush budget is really in Obama's first year as Clinton last budget is really in Bush's first year. That is how it is calculated. The budget deficit at the end of the last Bush budget was 10.699 trillion dollars. Nice try

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:04 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Curious why my comment regarding Mr. Chapman's conspiracy theory about Clinton 'cooking the books" was removed.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 3:01 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative, however, it is clear that when the republicans controlled congress from 2001-2007, only $2.9 trillion was added to the debt. When democrats took over for the last 2 years of his term, $2 trillion more was added. A huge part of that was due to TARP, which Bush and very few other republicans supported, while an overwhelming majority of democrats pushed it through.

    Oh, and from January 20, 2009 until January 20, 2011 (when the republicans won back the House of Reps) Pelosi, Reid, and Obama teamed up to add $3.4 trillion in new debt.

    Bush and Republican congress 6 years (2001-2007), $2.9 trillion
    Obama and Democrat congress 2 years (2009-2011), $3.4 trillion

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 2:43 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    January 20, 2001 (Bush's 1st day in office) National debt = $5.73 trillion
    January 20, 2007 (Pelosi and Reid take over entire congress) National debt = $8.68 trillion.
    That is about $2.9 trillion in Bush's first 6 years before the democrats took full control of the congress.
    January 20, 2007 National debt = $ 8.68 trillion
    October 15, 2012 National debt = $16.16 trillion
    That is $7.5 trillion added to the national debt since Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have been running the government as of January 20, 2007.

    I know in an earlier post I said $2.5 trillion and $8 trillion... sorry, it is $2.9 and $7.5.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:08 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    So far you have not proved anything. You have stated some allegations that you claim to be the truth. You have not documented any of your allegations in any fashion. These allegations go completely against the accepted history of what happened. It is up to you to prove your thesis. So far all we have is your word on it. That is simply not good enough.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:03 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726


    Sorry should read

    Your version of the "facts" are not reflected in any serious history of the period. I stand by what I said previously.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:00 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Your version of the "facts" are not reflected in any serious history or the period' I stand by what I said previously.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 1:58 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    I concentrated on Clinton because Clinton, LIBERALS, and posters on this site, continue to perpetuate the myth that he left a "surplus" when he left office. The FACTS are accessible to anyone who really wants to get the TRUTH. It is my contention that LIBERALS don't want to hear the TRUTH. Clinton lied and continues to lie about his "surplus" thinking citizens are too stupid to figure it out. Apparently, some are.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:56 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    try to make the chart more readable

    Presidential----------- Overall increase------------- Annual increase
    Term ---------------------in National Debt -------------in National Debt
    Carter ______________42.3%_______________ 9.2%
    Reagan____________ 188.6%______________ 14.2%
    Bush 1_____________ 55.6%_______________ 11.7%
    Clinton_____________ 35.6%_______________ 3.9%
    Bush 2_____________ 89.0%_______________ 8.3%
    Obama_____________ 41.4%______________ 12.2%

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 1:22 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    The way it works is to offer VALID factual proof that what I posted is incorrect. The terms "accepted history" and "accepted sources" are, as Biden puts it, is "MALARKEY".

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:22 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    There are many way to look at the national debt. You seem to be obsessed with the Clinton years but lets look at the overall picture. I have already showed the numbers showing that before Obama 78% of the national debt was out there by Conservative Republican presidents. Lets look at the numbers in terms of percentages

    Presidential Overall increase Annual increase
    Term in National Debt in National Debt

    Carter 42.3% 9.2%
    Reagan 188.6% 14.2%
    Bush 1 55.6% 11.7%
    Clinton 35.6% 3.9%
    Bush 2 89.0% 8.3%
    Obama 41.4% 12.2%

    It is interesting that Reagan leads all in terms of overall increase and annual increase in the National debt. If one took the dollar increase he did and adjusted for inflation he would be right there with Bush.

    Reagan and Obama have some justification for they inherited bad economies though Obama by any measure had the worst of it. Things that help people in a recession like unemployment benefits, food stamps etc skyrocketed while when the economy is losing 800,000 jobs a month there is a substantial decrease in tax revenue.

    What does the above facts tell us. Like I have proven before that so called financial Conservative Republican put up 78% of the debt before Obama, the Conservative Republican presidents also have a clear lead in overall increase by percentage in the National debt and the annual increase in the National Debt.

    Can someone please explain to me why the call Conservative Republicans financially conservative?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:27 pm on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Sorry Robert but that is not the way it works in the real world. What you are saying is not the accepted history of what occurred. Your view is not validated by any accepted source. Your numbers are not reflected in any chart or graph in any accepted source. It is not up to others to do any research or disprove a theory like yours which is not widely accepted. It is up to you to prove what you are saying is true and provide the evidence. Clearly you have not done so.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:50 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    The two greatest financial disasters in United States history occurred after 8 years of a Republican presidency. The difference between the two is that when the first event occurred in 1929 the Republicans remained in power for 3 more years. They followed the policy proscriptions that you, the tea party and the Republican party wanted. The unemployment rate went from 4% in 1928 to 25% in 1932. A parallel situation has happen in Europe in the last 3 years where Conservatives were elected. Those economies that followed the conservative austerity measures all got worse and unemployment shot up. The US has recovered better that almost anyone else under President Obama by not doing what the Republicans did in 1929 and the modern Conservatives did in Europe in 2008.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:37 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I do not know where you get your facts from but they are not correct. On the national debt the following is good but there are many others.

    http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

    President Bush increased the national debt by 5.037 trillion dollars not quite doubling it.

    I have to admit it took awhile to quit laughing at this gem. You said:

    If Obama gets re-elected, he will inherit a mess 3 times bigger from his own doing.

    Really? I did not know we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, the credit market is frozen, the auto industry is on its knees, the banks are going under etc
    Amazing, none of that is in my newspaper this morning like it was 4 years ago.

    If we want to go back to the glory days of 2008 all we have to do is elect Mitt Romney. He will bring back the polices that lets to that debacle.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 10:53 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    In 1993 the House and the Senate had a democratic majority. The top income tax base went from 31% to 39.6% increasing Federal revenues substantially. Even so, the total Federal deficit increased each year Clinton was in office. Like I said, had there been a "true" surplus, the deficit would have decreased. Never happened, NO TRUE surplus existed. If you had a job making $30K a year and spent it all, then borrowed $10K but only spent $5K would you have a "surplus" of $5K? Not where I went to school. Only LIBERALS believe this accounting methodology is viable.

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 9:00 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    The liberals will always have exploding head syndrome when anyone talks about truths and facts. They are caught up in their world of emotions and feelings. Facts and truths will always win.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 8:46 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Mr. Leopold, are you trying to make democrats heads explode? How dare you say it was anyone else except Bush that is to blame for this disastrous economy. Come on now, you know deep down in your heart the democrats couldn't possibly be accused of creating the current economic mess in America. Or, COULD THEY? Hmmmm......

     
  • Jay Samone posted at 8:16 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Jay Samone Posts: 359

    I couldn't agree with you more Mr. Chang......isn't there an "eye roll" smiley???? I think they need to add one.....

     
  • Mike Leopold posted at 7:41 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Mike Leopold Posts: 18

    Obama claims that he inherited the bad economy from Bush. Let us not forget that Obama was part of the completely democrat controlled congress from Jan. of 2007 until Jan. of 2009 when he moved into the white house. Bush and the republicans racked up about 2.5 trillion in debt from 2001-2007..... Obama and the democrat controlled congress added about 8 trillion from 2007 - 2012. If Obama gets re-elected, he will inherit a mess 3 times bigger from his own doing.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:47 am on Mon, Oct 15, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    I agree Mr Chang, I do believe Mr Lucas has articulated his position very well and there is not much left to say... somehow I am reminded of E F Hutton, Mr Mr Lucas speaks, we all should attentively listen, then sleep well.[sleeping]zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:12 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Robert, You could be right and I am not going to argue over it. Though if all the deficits were 16 billion the last forty years it would have been nice.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:13 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    [sleeping][yawn][sleeping]

    ZZZZZZzzzzzz......

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 5:58 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    For all the Lunk Head Liberals that are slow on the uptake, ONE MORE TIME:
    Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
    Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
    How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous OFF BUDGET FUNDS to make the on budget fund a surplus.
    For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
    $152.3B from Social Security
    $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
    $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
    $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
    $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
    $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
    $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
    $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
    $7.0B from others

    Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
    ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

    If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down. The national debt did NOT go down one year during the Clinton administration.
    You can disagree with these facts if you like, but prove them wrong, if you can.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:07 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    John stated...Our conservative Republican friends are always telling us that the only reason Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs and balanced the budget was through the efforts of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress.

    Yes, I have heard that from the Republicans, but what they are missing is that fact than Clinton was very good at understanding the conservative side as he was smart enough to employ D. Morris, a republican, as part of his advisory team. Had Clinton not been distracted by all the irresponsible conservatives, there is no telling how much he could have achieved.

    Clearly, Clinton's skill at compromising and having the best interests of American's at heart will dominate what people will remember about him historically. Gingrich without doubt hurt us with his contract on America and prevented Clinton from doing better than he did.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:48 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Walter stated...You'll feel at home and it will be fun too!


    I hope you are right Mr Chang... but I have a feeling it will be uncomfortable as I have many things to atone for.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:46 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mocking? You miss understand John, I finally get it... I cannot argue against your points. It really is rather humbling knowing how wrong I have been all along... thank you for your patience.

    You are right, I avoided the debate as I knew I had no foundation from which to substantiate my conservative leanings.... again, thank you for sharing your wisdom. I'll have to read again some past posts especial your four pillars of economic success generated by liberal policies... I have my work cut out for me.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 1:07 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    "sadistic trolls dwell"

    Great attitude, Darrell.

    You'll feel at home and it will be fun too!

    [beam]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:28 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mocking the analogy does not make it any less appropriate


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:01 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Thanks so much John for the analogy, it finally makes so much sense.

    I am ashamed that I was so slow to comprehend... conservatism really is all that you say it is...I owe you much![thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:00 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1295

    Enjoy

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:25 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Clearly between Mr.(s) Lucas,Heuer, Chang and now the now the lost and now found Mr Chaney, I have been exposed and humiliated.

    Their logic, factual posts and reasoning makes clear that my positions and posts were an obvious lie and without foundation.

    I will now put my figurative tail beween my legs and hide out in the muck and mud wehre other sadistic trolls dwell... the shame of it all...[crying]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:07 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Hey Tom, I am just having fun with our friend Darrell. It has been a hard slog but the lat two posts (after 14 post) he is actually talking about ideas. There is hope for him yet [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:57 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    If you hired two different mechanics to fix your car, switching from one to another at times. You notice that every time you hire one mechanic the engine blows up would you keep going back to the mechanic that your engine blows up or go to the other one? The fact is that the last two times the economy blew up the Republicans had the Presidency for the previous 8 years. This is not a fantasy this is reality, a fact. Look it up. They were give a job and they blew up the engine.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:49 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    There is a reason we have Presidential Elections. It is to provide leadership and make sure that calamities like 1929 do not happen. If, as you say, the Republicans are unable to prevent such a financial meltdown to occur why would any thinking person ever vote for them? It is why we elect them and that is their job. They failed in their prime responsibility and blaming it on other factors does not alter the fact that they allowed it to happen on their watch.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:42 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1295

    John
    Good post and great quote
    And Mr Chnag, the great Wa, is absolutely correct
    Darrell has a sadistic sense of humor which makes him dispicable
    He has no problem dragging other peoples family into a post for nefarious reasons
    Yet he will whine if someone mentions his family even though he will bring them in when it is convenient to him

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:20 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    CONTINUED...

    Mr Lucas claims Mr Herrick stated or perceives that Republicans were not responsible in any way... Reality is that he implied is htat it absurd to state that “only” Republican policies caused the Crash of 1929.

    I can state that I believe republican policies as well as democratic policies contributed... In addition, it was many other variables not related to government policies. Individual greed, incompetence, and many other factors make up the entire reason for the crash.

    Blaming republicans or democrats is a waste of time, just like debating Mr Lucas. Mr Herrick provided other reasons than the left/right argument, which is reasonable.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:19 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403


    ******************************************************************
    * ***
    * *** PECEPTION VS. REALITY
    * * * * ******************************************************************

    Mr Lucas stated... Mr. Herrick said that the Republicans “WERE NOT IN ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE” for the two greatest financial calamities that we have had in spite of the fact the Republicans owned the White House 8 years previously when the events occurred

    What Mr Herrick actually stated...To suggest that Herbert Hoover and Republican policies caused the crash of 1929 is just plain weird. Speculation, unsecured loan practices, margin buying and perhaps Fed Reserve policies were the culprit, not Hoover's policies

    Link

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:16 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...If this is not an attack I cannot wait for the real one.

    Exactly! ( but have no interest in personal attacks) just as I have no interest in claiming your intelligence and character is at issue like you do with all conservatives...

    But it is not "if" it is not an attack, it is "since" it is not an attack

    I am simply saying you are not open to receiving contrary information. I was telling Mr Herrick and the 4 or 5 other people who read your letter that you thanking Mr Herrick for helping you clear something up was not possible since nothing was cleared up in the first place.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:32 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    This is what you said:

    Between him and his sister Cynthia Neely who writes articles for Lodi News Sentinel, they know 100% of the causes of economic success and failures. I am sure your letter was in his view moronic since you took a conservative position.
    If the source of an idea, thought or policy is far left, it has merit. If it is conservative in nature, it does not. Therefore, what you really did was substantiate (in his mind) that he is 100% right, you are 100% wrong.

    Darrell if you wanted to just talk to Mr. Herrick you might try another means of communication.

    If this is not an attack I cannot wait for the real one. [smile]

    The only thing that is bizarre is your denial about your motives and your behavior.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:49 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    I am sure you believe that... no doubt

    However, If you look at my first post, all I did was say something to Mr Herrick, not you... I stated Mr. Herrick, please note that you could not have helped Mr. Lucas clear up anything... as a responce to you thanking Mr Herrick for clearing up something...

    You then accused me of attacking you... bizarre

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:06 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Good morning Darrell. I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed this thread. In fact, this is my favorite thread in the whole time I have been here.

    Your attacks on me run along two lines. You say:

    1. when one party(you) has a starting position that he is 100% right, and the other party is 100%wrong, the debate is meaningless…

    2. considering the continuous abusive language and angry responses you consistently post when someone conservative says something about your extreme liberal over the top positions.

    Let me be clear I am in no way criticizing Mr. Herrick for his attacks on my ideas. I admire Mr Herrick in the same way I admire Brian or Jerome. Like them, Mr. Herrick might get a little over the top in his personal attacks but he is consistent in his positions and willing to get in the nuts and bolts of a debate. He has integrity. I just disagree with him as he disagrees with me.

    As to your criticism in #1 above is not Mr Herrick is guilty as I am? Does he not have a starting position that he is 100% right? Of course he does that is why we are debating.

    As to your criticism in #2 lets go over what I said about him and what he said about me. Mr Herrick said about me and Liberals in general:
    ----------------------------------------------------

    I would like to comment on Mr. Lucas' letter, "A history of conservative Republican ideas and achievements," published on Sept. 27. It is the typical liberal argument of grammar school logic and no facts.

    The left is incapable of cogently arguing their position because there are rarely any facts to support it. Instead, they just spout the nonsense they heard on MSNBC or at some skate park as if it were true or rational; it's not.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is your criticism of and what I said:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    You were simply mocking and making fun of Mr. Herrick.; “Oh, I see your superior logic now, Mr. Herrick. When the Democrats are nominally in charge the Republicans are really in charge, and vice versa. Obviously we should vote the Democrats in so the Republicans can really be in charge.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Herrick said that the Republicans were not in any way responsible for the two greatest financial calamities that we have had in spite of the fact the Republicans owned the White House 8 years previously when the events occurred. I then reminded people of how our conservative Republican friends are always telling us that the only reason Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs and balanced the budget was through the efforts of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress and that Bush policies and not President Obama was responsible for getting Ben Laden. Yes I brought these Conservative ideas together and made fun of not only Mr. Herrick but all Conservative Republicans who hold these views. Guilty as charged. It is called satire.

    In this debate who is more guilty of as you say “ considering the continuous abusive language and angry responses you consistently post when someone conservative says something about your extreme liberal over the top positions.” I think Mr. Herrick surely fits your criticism.

    Yet you write multiple posts vigorously attacking me and not saying a word about Mr Henry who is surely as guilty of your criticisms as I am.. Could it be that there is another reason for your attacks on me and not Mr. Herrick? It could not possibly be because Mr. Herrick agrees with your positions politically and your stated reasons are just a sham. A man of your stature and integrity would never do such a thing. I have gotten a definition of a word you should ponder.

    hypocrite adjective
    a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:39 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Yes Mr. Tillett, which is why I have consistently maintained that both liberals and conservatives have contributed to success and failures in our country. There are many variables that contribute. To say there is only one cause to a problem like Mr. Lucas maintains, is in my view, narrow minded.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:30 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated…Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
I like this quote… Since the entire letter Mr Lucas presented was really about Mr Herrick and how Mr Lucas wanted to show how this man was wrong , I’d say this quote accurately describes Mr Lucas.

    If Mr Lucas had written a letter about ideas, that would have been refreshing.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:09 am on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403


    ******************************************************************
    * *
    * PECEPTION VS. REALITY * *
    * * * * ******************************************************************
    Mr Chaney provides the perception that without doubt is not reality

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:40 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [smile] I made two points in my discussion with you:

    1. You never get into the nuts and bolts of any argument
    2. Every post you make is a personal attack

    It is interesting that you hope this thread will disappear. Is someone twisting your arm to involve yourself in it or even look at it? I am enjoying our little discussion for every post you make just proves what I am saying about you is true. Believe me Darrell, you are not bothering me at all. Quite the contrary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:12 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    You see Mr Lucas, Mr Chang has it right... his post has substance.
    [innocent]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:10 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated......These 7 posts were written with the express purpose of attacking me personally. I am glad you realize that now.

    It is absurd to perceive I am attacking you personally.
    You wrote a letter that attacked Mr. Herrick. After reading it, I posted what your letter represented to me. It is only my opinion about what I perceive your intent to be. You then responded by saying, “your post contains not one fact or idea that relates to what the letter was about...
    So of course I responded by refuting your accusation. No attacks Mr. Lucas, just observations of what your letter is about and why it is pointless to get into nuts and bolts with you specifically.
    In my view, there is nothing in your letter that has substance to focus on. We are only left with your motivation for writing a letter that attacks someone for thinking differently than you.

    Hopefully, this thread will just disappear

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:53 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    No Mr Baumbach, great minds are objective and consider all variables that make up truth.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:50 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1062

    [tongue]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:14 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I have known that for quite awhile Darrell. These 7 posts you wrote were not written to debate an issue or a policy. These 7 posts were written with the express purpose of attacking me personally. I am glad you realize that now.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:47 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...Sorry Darrell but you never get into the nuts and bolts of any argument. Look at the argument you just made...

    Exactly my point... you are100% right I and others are 100% wrong... I "NEVER" get into the nuts and bolts...in over 8000 posts... Your mind is not just closed, Its cemented shut.

    I am happy to debate, but not with you, not a chance. No way, no how.


     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:31 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Sorry Darrell but you never get into the nuts and bolts of any argument. Look at the argument you just made. You said:

    For example, president Reagan in your view was a disaster based on other threads, yet conservatives hold him out has a very positive leader and policy maker… If the best case is bad in your view, there will never be a meeting of the minds.

    You are saying because I will disagree with you the debate is pointless. If you really wanted a debate you would have said President Reagan was good because of A, B and C. I would have countered by attacking your arguments and introducing my own. This goes back and forth. This is the way reasonable adults debate.

    I have had a good amount of time watching you in action. You generally just make personal attacks on the person who disagrees with you. Witness every post that you have made in response to my letter and to my posts. Examples:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nice try... but not likely considering the continuous abusive language and angry responses you consistently post when someone conservative says something about your extreme liberal over the top positions. You have called so many conservatives stupid, idiots, morons, lacking in character, low life, and every other insult you can think of to those who claim to be conservative that you claiming calmness,reasonableness and kindness has absolutely “no” credibility.

    So of course this letter was all about you Mr. Lucas…and the” world according to Lucas”

    If the source of an idea, thought or policy is far left, it has merit. If it is conservative in nature, it does not. Therefore, what you really did was substantiate (in his mind) that he is 100% right, you are 100% wrong.

    You to not have discussions or seek truth as you claim to know what truth is already.

    I'm shocked that Mr Lucas would perceive my truth as Malarkey...

    I would have thought he would have used stronger language and accused me of being a liar... you are mellowing out in your old age Mr Lucas... just like Biden.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The point of my letter was that Conservative blame Liberals for their disasters and take credit of Democratic successes. In the 568 words in which you have responded to this letter have you addressed what is the nuts and bolts of my letter? No. You have done nothing but attack me personally. This does not make me angry or anything for this is just what you are all about.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:56 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated... What is it about getting into the nuts and bolts about ideas turns you off?

    Excellent question!

    Answer...I always enjoy getting into the nuts and bolts of a topic. Unfortunately, when one party(you) has a starting position that he is 100% right, and the other party is 100%wrong, the debate is meaningless… in addition, when you state there is no possibility that a conservative idea or policy can result is something good, it means you are so close minded that nothing constructive can take place.

    For example, president Reagan in your view was a disaster based on other threads, yet conservatives hold him out has a very positive leader and policy maker… If the best case is bad in your view, there will never be a meeting of the minds.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:17 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    In the letter above or in any of my responses to your responses I fail to see any anger or the use of any of the words described in your post. What is it about attacking others that turns you on? What is it about getting into the nuts and bolts about ideas turns you off? Look at your posts. Everyone one of them is attacking me personally. I am neither angry or upset about it for it is what you are all about. Those that cannot compete in the realm of ideas resort to personal attacks. I could sit here and get into a pie fight with you but what would be the point?


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:44 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...I was amused at Mr Herrick's logic...

    Nice try... but not likely considering the continuous abusive language and angry responses you consistently post when someone conservative says something about your extreme liberal over the top positions. You have called so many conservatives stupid, idiots, morons, lacking in character, low life, and every other insult you can think of to those who claim to be conservative that you claiming calmness,reasonableness and kindness has absolutely “no” credibility.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:34 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    I'm shocked that Mr Lucas would perceive my truth as Malarkey... [ohmy]


    I would have thought he would have used stronger language and accused me of being a liar... you are mellowing out in your old age Mr Lucas... just like Biden.

    [tongue_smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:09 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Ty, Your right about Mr, Chapman's nonsense. President Bush did what Mr. Romney claims President Obama does. Mr Romney said he did not want to have a program and have to borrow money from the Chinese to pay for it. President Bush funneled a trillion dollars to the top 1% by his tax cuts and borrowed money from the Chinese and the Social Security surplus to pay for it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:22 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    Great letter, Mr. Lucas.

    Great sarcasm, but don't worry, Mr. Baumbach, your status as "mocker-in-chief" still stands. I can see why you dislike others "mocking and making fun" since it takes attention away from your chief accomplishment on these threads.

    Mr. Lucas wrote; "Our conservative Republican friends are always telling us that the only reason Bill Clinton created 23 million jobs and balanced the budget was through the efforts of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress."

    You forgot Mr. Chapman's contention that Clinton "cooked the books" in order to make it APPEAR that we had a budget surplus, when in fact, according to him, no such surplus existed, therefore George Walker Bush could NOT POSSIBLY have spent it.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Sorry meant to say

    historically the economy always does better having many more jobs in Democratic administrations.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:05 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    You have to quit saying things about my emotion state which are simple not true.
    You said:
    You were angered and insulted that someone assigned blame for problems on liberals because in your world, the only good that has come about in America is a result of liberal’s policies, ideas and thought.

    I was amused at Mr Herrick's logic. Like most Conservatives when things go bad on their watch it is always somebody else's fault. When things go good on the Democrats watch they take the credit. They do this because the two greatest financial disasters happened on their watch, the worst terrorist attack in our history happened, the biggest foreign policy blunder(Iraq) happened and historically the economy always does better having many more jobs. Those are facts and are true even in Darrell Baumbach world.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    
Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:38 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    As Joe Biden would say, "Malarky".

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:17 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr. Lucas stated…Your post contains not one fact or idea that relates to what the letter was about

    No Mr. Lucas, I know exactly what your letter was all about which is why I posted what I did. You were angered and insulted that someone assigned blame for problems on liberals because in your world, the only good that has come about in America is a result of liberal’s policies, ideas and thought.
    You were simply mocking and making fun of Mr. Herrick.; “Oh, I see your superior logic now, Mr. Herrick. When the Democrats are nominally in charge the Republicans are really in charge, and vice versa. Obviously we should vote the Democrats in so the Republicans can really be in charge.”
    So of course this letter was all about you Mr. Lucas…and the” world according to Lucas”

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:00 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    No Mr Lucas, great minds are objective and consider all variables that make up truth.

    You to not have discussions or seek truth as you claim to know what truth is already.

    I did not attack you in any way. I simply posted what you in other threads have typed. That would make your perceived personal attack from you to you.

    I simply provided the public context from where you come from.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:57 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Good morning Darrell. I guess it is never too early in the morning to start with the personal attacks. Your post contains not one fact or idea that relates to what the letter was about. What you want to do is get a pie fight going with both sides (Conservative and Liberal) hurling insults at each other. To get into the nuts about ideas is hard work and requires thinking. It is much easier to do what you are expert at which is just fling mud at anyone who dares disagree with your worldview.

    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
    Eleanor Roosevelt

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:07 am on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr. Herrick, please note that you could not have helped Mr. Lucas clear up anything.

    Between him and his sister Cynthia Neely who writes articles for Lodi News Sentinel, they know 100% of the causes of economic success and failures. I am sure your letter was in his view moronic since you took a conservative position.

    If the source of an idea, thought or policy is far left, it has merit. If it is conservative in nature, it does not. Therefore, what you really did was substantiate (in his mind) that he is 100% right, you are 100% wrong.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 15 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

"Is CSPAN an "extreme conservative source" or "conspiracy website" Treacy?" So if CSPAN doesn't run any cove…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Mohammad Elibiary's Twitter page is Mohammad Elibiary's Twitter page. Mohammad Elibiary's Twitter page is not an "unproven conspiracy …

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

It was YOU who said Mohammad Elibiary's Twitter page was an "extreme conservative source" or "conspiracy website." It …

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Why is the president ignoring t…

The difference is that we are openly speculating, not offering our thoughts as facts like you do with your nonsense.

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Many states allow guns in schoo…

Mike, I don't think any of us need to look up AB1014. If it's between believing you or Andrew, I'm sure you are the much more reliable so…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists