2016 Presidential Horse Race

[FightingIrishLover7]

I'm not an expert on Dr. Carson's plan and I'm not endorsing it, but as I understand it:

The $2,000 would accumulate every year from cradle-to-grave. So all the years you're a child on your parents' plan and all the years you're in an employer-sponsored plan, that money would accumulate and grow. For someone who is otherwise covered (and assuming a modest 5% return), the fund would grow to $56,000 by age 18 and over $1 million by age 68. That's more than enough to cover day-to-day medical expenses and to purchase a "catastrophic care" policy.


Except we are individuals. "Thinking" occurs in one's brain. There's no "collective" brain that can think. Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals gathered all together.

You must not be familiar with the principles of collective consciousness.

Which is sad, because most people are not.

Which only makes me more sad, because this leads me to believe that our society isn't ready to escape of the constraints of (social) Darwinism.

 

[wizards8507]

You must not be familiar with the principles of collective consciousness.

Which is sad, because most people are not.

Which only makes me more sad, because this leads me to believe that our society isn't ready to escape of the constraints of (social) Darwinism.

I look at it from a moral perspective. My morality is my own. I am not to be tied to the moral consequences of actions done by others over whom I have no control nor desire to control. My conscience is subject to my own sins and virtues, not to those of anyone else.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm not an expert on Dr. Carson's plan and I'm not endorsing it, but as I understand it:

The $2,000 would accumulate every year from cradle-to-grave. So all the years you're a child on your parents' plan and all the years you're in an employer-sponsored plan, that money would accumulate and grow. For someone who is otherwise covered (and assuming a modest 5% return), the fund would grow to $56,000 by age 18 and over $1 million by age 68. That's more than enough to cover day-to-day medical expenses and to purchase a "catastrophic care" policy.


Except we are individuals. "Thinking" occurs in one's brain. There's no "collective" brain that can think. Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals gathered all together.

The problem is how does it work for a 50 year old person or a poor person right now?

Also it seems like it would penalize people who have health problems at a younger age (say someone who got cancer at 25) as they would have to spend significantly more of their money earlier thus leaving them with significantly less money at an older age. Though I might be overly sensitive to this as my wife works in oncology.

 

[pkt77242]

I look at it from a moral perspective. My morality is my own. I am not to be tied to the moral consequences of actions done by others over whom I have no control nor desire to control. My conscience is subject to my own sins and virtues, not to those of anyone else.

How does that work with your Catholic faith? Taking care of the poor is a pretty important (or should be) tenet of the Catholic faith, so how do you fit your personal beliefs with your faith?

 

[wizards8507]

The problem is how does it work for a 50 year old person...

There would certainly need to be some kind of phase-in rather than a cold-turkey switch. I don't know what age the cutoff would need to be. I believe I've seen statistics that per-beneficiary Medicare spending is something like $12,000 per year, so the $2,000 figure could certainly be adjusted upward if need be.

...or a poor person right now?

It probably works better as a Medicare plan than a Medicaid plan, you're right. If most people are able to leave it alone until retirement age, they'd have a much more robust fund to cover expenses for the remainder of their life.

Also it seems like it would penalize people who have health problems at a younger age (say someone who got cancer at 25) as they would have to spend significantly more of their money earlier thus leaving them with significantly less money at an older age. Though I might be overly sensitive to this as my wife works in oncology.

That's the case with anything though, isn't it? It'll be easier for me to buy a house at age 45 after raises and promotions than it was to buy a house at age 22.

How does that work with your Catholic faith? Taking care of the poor is a pretty important (or should be) tenet of the Catholic faith, so how do you fit your personal beliefs with your faith?

I believe I have a moral obligation to help the poor. I believe you have a moral obligation to help the poor. I do not believe that I have the authority to force you to fulfill your moral obligation, nor do you have the authority to force me to fulfill mine. Me taking $5 out of your pocket and buying a sandwich for a homeless person is not a virtuous act. That's all welfare programs are, at their core.

Long story short, greed is evil, but you have a right to be greedy.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not an expert on Dr. Carson's plan and I'm not endorsing it, but as I understand it:

The $2,000 would accumulate every year from cradle-to-grave. So all the years you're a child on your parents' plan and all the years you're in an employer-sponsored plan, that money would accumulate and grow. For someone who is otherwise covered (and assuming a modest 5% return), the fund would grow to $56,000 by age 18 and over $1 million by age 68. That's more than enough to cover day-to-day medical expenses and to purchase a "catastrophic care" policy.


Except we are individuals. "Thinking" occurs in one's brain. There's no "collective" brain that can think. Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals gathered all together.

So, an inner city kid with four siblings and a single mother working two jobs to put food on the table and a roof over their heads has the "opportunity" to put $2k a year into a health savings account? What are the odds that by 68 years old, he will have $1 million saved into his account in case he needs a new hip or has colon cancer? And, what are the odds that 65 years from now $1 million is even going to be very much money at all?

What happens when poor people who can't afford insurance today continue to not be able to afford to put $2K away (let alone the $10k for this child's whole family) when they actually get sick and have nothing in their health savings accounts? Currently, that family -- like 1 in 5 of all Americans gets health care through Medicaid and when they reach retirement age, like all of us, will have Medicare. How are medical savings accounts better for them? How are they better for 70 percent of all nursing home residents who do not work and rely on Medicaid? Stripping that program away and replacing it with $2K is a terrible idea.

Carson's plan is either incredibly short sighted or unbelievably mean spirited. It ignores the realieies of millions and millions of Americans. Today, there are 49.5 million people on Medicare. Say if it went away tomorrow, what do they get? -- the opportunity to sock away $2K for a couple of years until they get really sick and have $4K to pay for a $50K operation? Again, just stupid.

I suspect that this hair brained idea will be the very thing that knocks Carson's candidacy off the rails. For a guy who is supposed to be so brilliant, he's kind of dumb.

 

[wizards8507]

So, an inner city kid with four siblings and a single mother working two jobs to put food on the table and a roof over their heads has the "opportunity" to put $2k a year into a health savings account? What are the odds that by 68 years old, he will have $1 million saved into his account in case he needs a new hip or has colon cancer? And, what are the odds that 65 years from now $1 million is even going to be very much money at all?

What happens when poor people who can't afford insurance today continue to not be able to afford to put $2K away (let alone the $10k for this child's whole family) when they actually get sick and have nothing in their health savings accounts? Currently, that family -- like 1 in 5 of all Americans gets health care through Medicaid and when they reach retirement age, like all of us, will have Medicare. How are medical savings accounts better for them? How are they better for 70 percent of all nursing home residents who do not work and rely on Medicaid? Stripping that program away and replacing it with $2K is a terrible idea.

Carson's plan is either incredibly short sighted or unbelievably mean spirited. It ignores the realieies of millions and millions of Americans. Today, there are 49.5 million people on Medicare. Say if it went away tomorrow, what do they get? -- the opportunity to sock away $2K for a couple of years until they get really sick and have $4K to pay for a $50K operation? Again, just stupid.

I suspect that this hair brained idea will be the very thing that knocks Carson's candidacy off the rails. For a guy who is supposed to be so brilliant, he's kind of dumb.

Read on.

 

[phgreek]

I watched the "debate". I walk away having gained nothing from that time spent.

I think the point everyone misses...

This exercise is specifically to be designed so that REPUBLICAN voters can begin to cut through the bullshit, and get to a workable PRIMARY.

Did anyone on the conservative side of things feel like this debate provided anything helpful?

BY that measuring stick, and the only one that matters mind you, this debate was a complete failure from the design...never had a chance.

I think it is easy to resort to partisan nit-picking...as conservatives we will always be the group that is easiest to poke at...most of us get it. This is different. There were always those capable of delivering questions with the people in mind...it is obvious we've gone beyond that. Sad day.

 

[kmoose]

So, an inner city kid with four siblings and a single mother working two jobs to put food on the table and a roof over their heads has the "opportunity" to put $2k a year into a health savings account? What are the odds that by 68 years old, he will have $1 million saved into his account in case he needs a new hip or has colon cancer? And, what are the odds that 65 years from now $1 million is even going to be very much money at all?

What happens when poor people who can't afford insurance today continue to not be able to afford to put $2K away (let alone the $10k for this child's whole family) when they actually get sick and have nothing in their health savings accounts? Currently, that family -- like 1 in 5 of all Americans gets health care through Medicaid and when they reach retirement age, like all of us, will have Medicare. How are medical savings accounts better for them? How are they better for 70 percent of all nursing home residents who do not work and rely on Medicaid? Stripping that program away and replacing it with $2K is a terrible idea.

Carson's plan is either incredibly short sighted or unbelievably mean spirited. It ignores the realieies of millions and millions of Americans. Today, there are 49.5 million people on Medicare. Say if it went away tomorrow, what do they get? -- the opportunity to sock away $2K for a couple of years until they get really sick and have $4K to pay for a $50K operation? Again, just stupid.

I suspect that this hair brained idea will be the very thing that knocks Carson's candidacy off the rails. For a guy who is supposed to be so brilliant, he's kind of dumb.

Reading is fundamental........

But just last week Politico reported that Carson, who has surged to second place in the Republican presidential race, wanted to replace Medicare with a “system of cradle-to-grave savings accounts” which would be funded with an annual $2,000 in government contributions.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

From a policy standpoint I think they all suck. Feel the Bern!

The mindset of a very misguided individual. A pro growth economy, reforming entitlements, flat tax plans, simplifying the tax codes...all suck.

Bankrupting America quicker with "free" everything for everyone? Bring it on, Bernie!!

 

[GoIrish41]

There would certainly need to be some kind of phase-in rather than a cold-turkey switch. I don't know what age the cutoff would need to be. I believe I've seen statistics that per-beneficiary Medicare spending is something like $12,000 per year, so the $2,000 figure could certainly be adjusted upward if need be.


It probably works better as a Medicare plan than a Medicaid plan, you're right. If most people are able to leave it alone until retirement age, they'd have a much more robust fund to cover expenses for the remainder of their life.


That's the case with anything though, isn't it? It'll be easier for me to buy a house at age 45 after raises and promotions than it was to buy a house at age 22.


I believe I have a moral obligation to help the poor. I believe you have a moral obligation to help the poor. I do not believe that I have the authority to force you to fulfill your moral obligation, nor do you have the authority to force me to fulfill mine. Me taking $5 out of your pocket and buying a sandwich for a homeless person is not a virtuous act. That's all welfare programs are, at their core.

Long story short, greed is evil, but you have a right to be greedy.

So we rent from 22 until we can afford a house 23 years later .... but if you have cancer you probably won't live long enough to own a home because you could not afford the medical treatment.

 

[Cackalacky]

Happy Halloween!
Donald Trump Photoshopped into Horror Movies is Internet Gold - iHorror

 

[GoIrish41]

The mindset of a very misguided individual. A pro growth economy, reforming entitlements, flat tax plans, simplifying the tax codes...all suck.

Bankrupting America quicker with "free" everything for everyone? Bring it on, Bernie!!

Trickle down economics doesn't work, unless you have not been paying attention for the past few decades. It has decimated the middle class, expanded the poor and created an oligarchy, in which corporations control our government at the expense of the people. It is difficult to find much credibility in the guys who introduced these bad policies, watched them not work for most of my lifetime, and insist on continuing to double down despite all the evidence. Maybe its time to go in another direction.

 

[ACamp1900]

I honestly don't know the last one... the Shining got me tho, pretty funny.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Trickle down economics doesn't work, unless you have not been paying attention for the past few decades. It has decimated the middle class, expanded the poor and created an oligarchy, in which corporations control our government at the expense of the people. It is difficult to find much credibility in the guys who introduced these bad policies, watched them not work for most of my lifetime, and insist on continuing to double down despite all the evidence. Maybe its time to go in another direction.

Another direction? You're talking like it's 2007. Obama has been in office since 2009. Everything that should be up (economic growth, home ownership, workforce participation) is down, and everything that should be down (poverty, welfare, unemployed minorities, youth unemployment) is up.

And that's just the economic part.

 

[Booslum31]

Happy Halloween!
Donald Trump Photoshopped into Horror Movies is Internet Gold - iHorror

The press keeps pumping Trump up because they know he can't win. Your pictures are more flattering of him then anything the press puts out. Cracks me up.

 

[GoIrish41]

Instead of convincing yourself that Obama was a tax and spend, bleeding heart liberal you should have figured out by now that he is a biz friendly centrist that has pushed for more traditional moderate GOP policies -- Romneycare, continuation of Bush tax cuts, and the Pacific trade pact are just a few examples. Every politician since the 80s has operated in a framework created by Saint Reagan and we are now living in the inevitable conclusion (we should all hope) of his policies in a nation that has slowly grown accustomed to slow degredation. Yes, a new direction. One that puts ordinary citizens ahead of CEOs. Rebuilding the middle class that those policies has slowly and surely destroyed. Rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure and getting off the big oil teet instead of waging war to keep the fix coming. It is time for a new direction that resets the political boundaries and gets away from the disastrous policies that have slowly eroded this country for four decades.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Originally Posted by wizards8507 View Post
I look at it from a moral perspective. My morality is my own. I am not to be tied to the moral consequences of actions done by others over whom I have no control nor desire to control. My conscience is subject to my own sins and virtues, not to those of anyone else.

How does that work with your Catholic faith? Taking care of the poor is a pretty important (or should be) tenet of the Catholic faith, so how do you fit your personal beliefs with your faith?

This is the message that Wizards isn't picking up on. The "religious" politicians all seem to be about Americans saving for themselves. They create an individualistic society in which they convince people that they need to worry only about their own savings, insurance, etc.

In reality, a great society would actually his "conscience" would think about others. Has he (and others) forgotten the Golden Rule? Is there something wrong with having a government in place, in which it benefits those that need it the most? Right now, our government is more interested in keeping the rich, rich. The whole "experiment" with Trickle-down economics was a bullshit fairy-tale that politicians convince an economically naive population would work. It hasn't worked, yet, most Republicans want to continue (to one degree or another) with these broken models.

If Jesus were a politician, would he be in favor of government social safety nets or abolish them?

 

[GoIrish41]

This is the message that Wizards isn't picking up on. The "religious" politicians all seem to be about Americans saving for themselves. They create an individualistic society in which they convince people that they need to worry only about their own savings, insurance, etc.

In reality, a great society would actually his "conscience" would think about others. Has he (and others) forgotten the Golden Rule? Is there something wrong with having a government in place, in which it benefits those that need it the most? Right now, our government is more interested in keeping the rich, rich. The whole "experiment" with Trickle-down economics was a bullshit fairy-tale that politicians convince an economically naive population would work. It hasn't worked, yet, most Republicans want to continue (to one degree or another) with these broken models.

If Jesus were a politician, would he be in favor of government social safety nets or abolish them?

Can't rep you again, but great post.

 

[Irish#1]

This is the message that Wizards isn't picking up on. The "religious" politicians all seem to be about Americans saving for themselves. They create an individualistic society in which they convince people that they need to worry only about their own savings, insurance, etc.

In reality, a great society would actually his "conscience" would think about others. Has he (and others) forgotten the Golden Rule? Is there something wrong with having a government in place, in which it benefits those that need it the most? Right now, our government is more interested in keeping the rich, rich. The whole "experiment" with Trickle-down economics was a bullshit fairy-tale that politicians convince an economically naive population would work. It hasn't worked, yet, most Republicans want to continue (to one degree or another) with these broken models.

If Jesus were a politician, would he be in favor of government social safety nets or abolish them?

No disrespect, but I find it to be just the opposite.

 

[GoIrish41]

No disrespect, but I find it to be just the opposite.

Maybe super rich, super rich is what he meant to say. You don't disagree there, I'm guessing.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Instead of convincing yourself that Obama was a tax and spend, bleeding heart liberal you should have figured out by now that he is a biz friendly centrist that has pushed for more traditional moderate GOP policies -- Romneycare, continuation of Bush tax cuts, and the Pacific trade pact are just a few examples. Every politician since the 80s has operated in a framework created by Saint Reagan and we are now living in the inevitable conclusion (we should all hope) of his policies in a nation that has slowly grown accustomed to slow degredation. Yes, a new direction. One that puts ordinary citizens ahead of CEOs. Rebuilding the middle class that those policies has slowly and surely destroyed. Rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure and getting off the big oil teet instead of waging war to keep the fix coming. It is time for a new direction that resets the political boundaries and gets away from the disastrous policies that have slowly eroded this country for four decades.

-National debt was $10 billion when he took office. When he leaves it will be $19 billion.
-Obamacare has crushed small businesses.
-More regulations than ever on business.
-Still have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

None of these policies help the middle class. They are crushing the middle class. And by "rebuilding America" you mean another $900 billion dollar "stimulus"? Oh yeah, we've got plenty of coin in our coffers haha. Not sure what's more sad: the fact that you think Obama is a centrist, or that Bernie Sanders would rebuild America lol

 

[GoIrish41]

-National debt was $10 billion when he took office. When he leaves it will be $19 billion.
-Obamacare has crushed small businesses.
-More regulations than ever on business.
-Still have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

None of these policies help the middle class. They are crushing the middle class. And by "rebuilding America" you mean another $900 billion dollar "stimulus"? Oh yeah, we've got plenty of coin in our coffers haha. Not sure what's more sad: the fact that you think Obama is a centrist, or that Bernie Sanders would rebuild America lol

Your insistence that Rand had a path to the Oval Offce?

 

[wizards8507]

This is the message that Wizards isn't picking up on. The "religious" politicians all seem to be about Americans saving for themselves. They create an individualistic society in which they convince people that they need to worry only about their own savings, insurance, etc.

In reality, a great society would actually his "conscience" would think about others. Has he (and others) forgotten the Golden Rule? Is there something wrong with having a government in place, in which it benefits those that need it the most? Right now, our government is more interested in keeping the rich, rich. The whole "experiment" with Trickle-down economics was a bullshit fairy-tale that politicians convince an economically naive population would work. It hasn't worked, yet, most Republicans want to continue (to one degree or another) with these broken models.

If Jesus were a politician, would he be in favor of government social safety nets or abolish them?

You're absolutely wrong. I don't want to eliminate safety nets and force people to fend for themselves. I want to create an environment of economic growth and a culture in which people care for one another and render the safety nets largely unnecessary. But those things need to be voluntary. Having a "really good reason" to confiscate someone's property doesn't make it okay.

There are lots of things that I think should be done but that doesn't mean the federal government is necessarily the right entity to do it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

No disrespect, but I find it to be just the opposite.

I'd argue many in the political class want to keep their power and stay removed from the problems, at the same time demanding that we the "little people" continue to sacrifice.

Hillary promises to "come down hard" on Wall St. Look at her campaign donors lol. Joke.

Sanders claims to hate Wall St, but wants to tax them to holy hell to pay for all the free shit he wants to give everyone.

How many leftists cheered Obamacare but don't have to be objected to it?

How many politicians champion public education and the teachers' union while sending their kids to private school?

How many cry for gun control while being protected (and their families) by armed guards every day?

How many politicians supported the GM bailout but drive foreign cars?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Your insistence that Rand had a path to the Oval Offce?

Your past two posts are just dodging what I'm throwing at you. Good stuff. Very substantive.

 

[GoIrish41]

Your past two posts are just dodging what I'm throwing at you. Good stuff. Very substantive.

Only because they ignored the point of the post you responded to -- which was that every president since Dutch has had to operate in his economic and political creation. Someone posted a great article several days ago about it is all unraveling for them politically AND today Whiskey Peter an article about how they have run out of ideas economically. You should really check them out.

You immediately go to Obama policy without even acknowledging that my point includes Obama. But, it is bigger than any one administration. Hell its been this way your entire life. You don't think it can be better than it is right now? In my lifetime, most people I come in contact with had good comfortable wages, pensions, health care, and could send their kids to college and go to the beach for a week or two each year with their families. Today, most people are not that fortunate, even though companies they work for are making record profits as they take away or water down benefits. That did not begin in the Obama administration. It began with the Gipper, my friend. Time for a change.

 

[Cackalacky]

Huffington Post piece

Flash And Fibs Were GOP Debate's Big Winners

Lots of people seem to think the dominant storylines about Wednesday night’s Republican primary debate are Marco Rubio’s smooth delivery, Jeb Bush’s weak attempt to knock Rubio off his game, and the supposed incompetence of the CNBC moderators. If you care about substance, however, the main takeaway was how little candor the candidates showed when talking about policy.

Over and over again, the GOP contenders on stage in Boulder, Colorado, made misleading claims about important economic issues. And when the moderators confronted the candidates with their contradictions or misstatements, the candidates responded by attacking the media -- and fibbing a little more.

It was good politics, for sure. As HuffPost's Natalie Jackson has noted, beating up on reporters is extremely popular with the Republican base. Probably the loudest cheers for the entire night came after Ted Cruz attacked the moderators for setting up a "cage match" and ignoring substance. Frank Luntz, a conservative pollster, tweeted that his focus group gave that statement a 98 rating (out of 100).

But Cruz’s statement, and the reaction to it, actually showed just how evasive the Republicans were being. The question that prompted Cruz’s outburst was a perfectly legitimate one. It was about the spending agreement between the White House and Congress, and what Cruz thought about it. Questions don’t get more substantive than that.

Here were some examples of the candidates dissembling and, in one case, telling an outright lie.

Donald Trump develops amnesia: The most brazen statement of the night came from Trump. During a discussion about immigration and visas for high-skill workers, CNBC’s Becky Quick asked Trump about a references he’d made to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg -- specifically, calling Rubio "Zuckerberg’s personal senator."
"I never said that," Trump replied.
Actually, he did. It’s right on his website.

Ben Carson pretends he can change the laws of math: At another moment, Quick homed in on one key problem with Carson’s proposal for a flat tax. Given the rate Carson has in mind, Quick noted, he’d be significantly reducing federal revenue -- in ways that would require either huge spending cuts or, more likely, much higher deficits.

Quick used specific figures from reputable sources, and Carson simply denied them. "When … when we put all the facts down, you’ll be able to see that it’s not true, it works out very well," he said.

Carly Fiorina recycles a debunked talking point: In a discussion of Hillary Clinton and the significance of electing the first female president, Fiorina said Clinton was merely proposing to defend and expand the policies of the Obama administration -- and that during Obama’s term, 92 percent of the jobs lost in America belonged to women.

The argument may have sounded familiar: Mitt Romney used in 2012, at which point the fact-checking site Politifact pointed out several key flaws. The figure includes job losses during Obama's first month in office -- long before any of his economic policies started to take effect. At the same time, it does not include all of the jobs that men had lost when the recession first began, during the end of George W. Bush’s term. The figure is even more misleading now, since it ignores all of the job growth since 2012.

Rubio dodges a big question on his tax plan: This was in some ways the most important evasion of the night, because it’s an example of how deftly Rubio will defend and disguise his deeply conservative economic scheme should he become the nominee.
CNBC’s John Harwood asked Rubio about his tax plan. Citing a recent analysis by the nonpartisan (but conservative-leaning) Tax Foundation, Harwood said Rubio’s tax plan would give larger benefits to the rich than to the middle class. Rubio quickly responded that Harwood had his facts wrong -- that the Rubio tax plan would actually give larger benefits to the poor.
The sleight of hand is easy to miss. (One of the few to catch it was New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait.) Rubio is correct when he says that, by the Tax Foundation’s reckoning, his plan would deliver proportionally higher after-tax benefits to the very poor than it would to the rich. But Harwood hadn’t asked about the poor. He’d asked about the middle class. Sure enough, the Tax Foundation found that the top 10 percent of earners in America would get proportionally larger benefits than all but the bottom one-third of the income scale, and that the top 1 percent -- the wealthiest of the wealthy -- would get more than everybody except the bottom tenth.
And that’s to say nothing of the fact that his plan is so expensive even many conservatives think it’s wildly unrealistic. If Rubio wins and a Republican-controlled Congress passes something that looks anything like his plan, the only way to offset the expense would be through deep spending cuts into programs upon which the poor and middle class rely.

* * *
None of this may matter. The early verdict is that Rubio won, because he showed "poise, seriousness, and passion." Pundits are describing the CNBC moderator performance as an "epic fail." And maybe that points to an inherent problem with trying to ask substantive questions in televised debates: Candidates willing to bend or even deny the truth can get away with it, as long as they do so shamelessly and the audience roars with approval.

 

[connor_in]

Only because they ignored the point of the post you responded to -- which was that every president since Dutch has had to operate in his economic and political creation. Someone posted a great article several days ago about it is all unraveling for them politically AND today Whiskey Peter an article about how they have run out of ideas economically. You should really check them out.

You immediately go to Obama policy without even acknowledging that my point includes Obama. But, it is bigger than any one administration. Hell its been this way your entire life. You don't think it can be better than it is right now? In my lifetime, most people I come in contact with had good comfortable wages, pensions, health care, and could send their kids to college and go to the beach for a week or two each year with their families. Today, most people are not that fortunate, even though companies they work for are making record profits as they take away or water down benefits. That did not begin in the Obama administration. It began with the Gipper, my friend. Time for a change.

Wow! Our entire current economic history began in January 1981 with absolutely no influences from before that month. Who knew?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Wow! Our entire current economic history began in January 1981 with absolutely no influences from before that month. Who knew?

Amazing, isn't it? When we're talking about race, he thinks it's 1952. When we're talking economic policy he pretends it's 2008 and we need to flip our economic system upside down.