Why are republican conservatives so w...
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#42 Mar 24, 2013
LOL LiberTEA got his ass handed to him with real historical accounting of why his ideas consistently lead to failure like economic entropy. So what does he do? Ignore the criticism and continues to preach his dogma. You are a good soldier, but they won't reward you for it when the time comes.
If Roosevelt's "schemes" were so bad, why did the promises of these plans not start unravel for almost 40 years, when Conservatism regained it footing and started rolling them back? Social Security would be fine if you idiots would have just left it alone. You've been chipping it away slowly trying to look like you are not killing it publicly, while killing it from the inside. Then you get to claim it is broke while you were the ones who crippled it to begin with.
Basically Republicants, CONservatives, and Tea Potty folks are the sort of people that hate their spouses pet dog yet have to accept it. So they slowly feed it poison until the animal starts showing it is sick. They then claim, with no medical or veterinary evidence that the animal is already dying and needs to be put to sleep instead of just given proper treatment and care... but mostly... just to be left alone.
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

#43 Mar 24, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
LOL LiberTEA got his ass handed to him with real historical accounting of why his ideas consistently lead to failure like economic entropy. So what does he do? Ignore the criticism and continues to preach his dogma. You are a good soldier, but they won't reward you for it when the time comes.
If Roosevelt's "schemes" were so bad, why did the promises of these plans not start unravel for almost 40 years, when Conservatism regained it footing and started rolling them back? Social Security would be fine if you idiots would have just left it alone. You've been chipping it away slowly trying to look like you are not killing it publicly, while killing it from the inside. Then you get to claim it is broke while you were the ones who crippled it to begin with.
Basically Republicants, CONservatives, and Tea Potty folks are the sort of people that hate their spouses pet dog yet have to accept it. So they slowly feed it poison until the animal starts showing it is sick. They then claim, with no medical or veterinary evidence that the animal is already dying and needs to be put to sleep instead of just given proper treatment and care... but mostly... just to be left alone.
You are the one that is denying the real historical accounting, as socialist liberals always do.

Theodore Roosevelt's regulatory schemes started to unravel in a whole lot less than 40 years. Voters roundly rejected them in the election of 1920, if not in the election of 1912. In the election of 1920, Warren G. Harding received 16,143,407 popular votes to the liberal Republican Cox’s 9,130,328 votes, a majority of 64 percent. Harding's margin of victory was one of the biggest in American history. Had the election of 1912 not been thrown off by the idiotic Bull Moose candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt and the communist Eugene Debs the voters would probably have rejected it then. Woodrow Wilson got just 41.8 % of the vote, but won because that was the largest total of any candidate. Taft got 23.2 % and Roosevlet got 27.4 %. The communist, who was in prison at the time, got 6 %. If all the Republicans who were drawn off by Roosevelt's candidacy had voted for Taft and all the commies that voted for Debs had voted for Wilson (which is not likely), Taft would have gotten 50.6 percent of the vote.

In that case the "Return to Normalcy" that fostered the prosperous "Roaring Twenties" would have begun in 1913. A conservative Republican like Taft would not have resorted to the idiotic socialist policies that Wilson did in World War 1 like taking over the railroads and industry. It is also highly unlikely that Taft would have courted the Bolsheviks like Wilson did. He would have joined forces with the Allies to crush the Soviets in 1919-20. Might even have used the defeated German armies to do it.

In that case President Calvin Coolidge, who I consider among the best if not THE best president that we have ever had, instead of saying, "The business of American is business" could have said, "The business of the world is business." Had business and industry not been hamstrung by socialist government policies that were adopted at least in part as a pathetic way to make communism less appealing to workers, the recovery that happened in the U.S. in the 1920s would have happened in Europe as well. There would have been none of the problems in Europe that dragged the U.S. into the Depression. There would have been no Mussolini, no Stalin, no Hitler, and no World War 2 either.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#44 Mar 24, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
LOL LiberTEA got his ass handed to him with real historical accounting of why his ideas consistently lead to failure like economic entropy. So what does he do? Ignore the criticism and continues to preach his dogma. You are a good soldier, but they won't reward you for it when the time comes.
If Roosevelt's "schemes" were so bad, why did the promises of these plans not start unravel for almost 40 years, when Conservatism regained it footing and started rolling them back? Social Security would be fine if you idiots would have just left it alone. You've been chipping it away slowly trying to look like you are not killing it publicly, while killing it from the inside. Then you get to claim it is broke while you were the ones who crippled it to begin with.
Basically Republicants, CONservatives, and Tea Potty folks are the sort of people that hate their spouses pet dog yet have to accept it. So they slowly feed it poison until the animal starts showing it is sick. They then claim, with no medical or veterinary evidence that the animal is already dying and needs to be put to sleep instead of just given proper treatment and care... but mostly... just to be left alone.
You talk crazy. If want the govt to hold your money till you retire then you send them your money and leave everyone else alone! If you want govt health insurance then you send it your premiums and leave everyone else alone! But you libs won't do that. Instead you want to drag everyone into your twisted relationship with govt. Then when we don't want to join you the govt uses the IRS to harass and arrest us because we want to plan our own retirement and choose our own health insurance and not pay for other peoples food, shelter, retirement or health insurance. You libs are sick and disgusting!
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

#45 Mar 24, 2013
SHAFT wrote:
<quoted text>You talk crazy. If want the govt to hold your money till you retire then you send them your money and leave everyone else alone! If you want govt health insurance then you send it your premiums and leave everyone else alone! But you libs won't do that. Instead you want to drag everyone into your twisted relationship with govt. Then when we don't want to join you the govt uses the IRS to harass and arrest us because we want to plan our own retirement and choose our own health insurance and not pay for other peoples food, shelter, retirement or health insurance. You libs are sick and disgusting!
Notice how Anonymouse says, "Social Security would be fine if you idiots would have just left it alone. You've been chipping it away slowly trying to look like you are not killing it publicly, while killing it from the inside. Then you get to claim it is broke while you were the ones who crippled it to begin with."

That reflects the basic dishonesty of all liberals. Social Security was a bad idea to start with, basically a ponzi scheme disguised to fool people into thinking that they would draw back what they paid in plus interest, but I can understand why the Republicans of Eisenhower's time did not repeal it. It would have been political suicide. Frankling D. Roosevelt designed Social Security the way he did for that very reason. He said so.

But even if Social Security had been like an IRA where people did pay back what they paid in plus interest, the liberals would have broken it just like they broke the Social Security trust fund. Instead of leaving the money in the Treasury the liberals took it out, left and IOU in its place, and then squandered the money on welfare, education, and whatever other hairbrained scheme they wanted to throw money at. Now the piggy bank is empty and the IOUs are coming due. There is only two ways that the IOUs can be paid, raise taxes so high that it would bankrupt every taxpayer in the country or borrow money. In that case the payoff will be delayed, but eventually the taxpayer will still have to pay, and pay even more. It is a very clever way to rob the bank on the part of the liberals, however, because it will be conservatives who have to fix the mess the only way that it can be fixed, by tearing up the IOUs and telling the people that paid in to Social Security, "No. You're not getting the pension that you thought you were going to get." Then, after the conservatives have taken the heat, the liberals will convert Social Security to a "means tested" entitlement, that is to say another giveaway for the welfare class, which is their political base.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#46 Mar 24, 2013
Now I know you are intellectually dishonest when you knew I was talking about FDR, but instead used the failed REPUBLICAN policies of Theodore Roosevelt. You honestly think that people are that stupid to think you can pull a bait and switch like that and they would honestly believe it or I would not call you out on the dishonesty of it?
Laughable that you just throw shit on a wall and hope it sticks.
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

#47 Mar 24, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
Back to the original question, "Why are Republican Conservatives so weak and cowardly?"
The reason is that the Republican party is still infected with the disease called "Progressivism" that was injected into it by Theodore Roosevelt. There's an old saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and Roosevelt's opening of the door to government regulation of private enterprise and interference in the free market is a good example.
The Republican party will produce winners when the TEA Party succeeds in purging it of the RINOs who are infected with the "Progressive" virus and fields candidates that are real Conservatives who are pledged to rolling back the creeping socialism that began with Roosevelt's ill-conceived schemes to regulate private enterprise.
Again, Anonymouse displays the basic dishonesty and displacement tactics of the socialist liberals. Above is my post that he/she/it appears to be responding to, then the mouse says that he/she/it was talking about the other Roosevelt, Franklin D.

Note also how my point about the liberals robbing the Social Security piggy bank and leaving it to conservatives to fix the mess and take the blame is avoided.

“Dewey Beats Truman!”

Since: Apr 12

Here

#48 Mar 24, 2013
Yes lord forbid that I do not reply to all of the 100 crazy points you try to make in you make in your multiple posting ADHD fueled wackadoodle rants where you sometimes even reply to yourself right after just posting.
But hey, if Republicants are so concerned with anyone raiding the piggy bank... why have they not been in any hurry to pay it back? Well obviously you wouldn't want to pay it back if your whole mission is to kill it. It is a win win right? Giving lip service to blame the other guy for taking money out, while not really doing anything to stop them and not intending to repair any of the damage caused because the short sighted fools are helping you to dismantle it in the long run.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#49 Mar 24, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Yes lord forbid that I do not reply to all of the 100 crazy points you try to make in you make in your multiple posting ADHD fueled wackadoodle rants where you sometimes even reply to yourself right after just posting.
But hey, if Republicants are so concerned with anyone raiding the piggy bank... why have they not been in any hurry to pay it back? Well obviously you wouldn't want to pay it back if your whole mission is to kill it. It is a win win right? Giving lip service to blame the other guy for taking money out, while not really doing anything to stop them and not intending to repair any of the damage caused because the short sighted fools are helping you to dismantle it in the long run.
You are crazy. Pay it back with what? The govt has no money of its own. Once its spent its gone. SS is your money. The govt does everything with your money. Once its gone it has no way of paying it back. Even when govt gives you money its your money that you gave them if you pay taxes.
HugMyNuts

Hopkinsville, KY

#50 Mar 24, 2013
the real anonymouse wrote:
Yes lord forbid that I do not reply to all of the 100 crazy points you try to make in you make in your multiple posting ADHD fueled wackadoodle rants where you sometimes even reply to yourself right after just posting.
But hey, if Republicants are so concerned with anyone raiding the piggy bank... why have they not been in any hurry to pay it back? Well obviously you wouldn't want to pay it back if your whole mission is to kill it. It is a win win right? Giving lip service to blame the other guy for taking money out, while not really doing anything to stop them and not intending to repair any of the damage caused because the short sighted fools are helping you to dismantle it in the long run.
HUG MY NUTS!

YES, SQUEEZE THEM!

HUG MY NUTS!
LiberTEA

Paducah, KY

#51 Mar 24, 2013
SHAFT wrote:
<quoted text>You are crazy. Pay it back with what? The govt has no money of its own. Once its spent its gone. SS is your money. The govt does everything with your money. Once its gone it has no way of paying it back. Even when govt gives you money its your money that you gave them if you pay taxes.
There is one way for the government to pay it back and not raise taxes. The government owns the printing press at the U.S. Mint. It can print money and pump it into the economy by paying it out as Social Security and welfare. Inflation is just a stealth way of taxing those who have worked hard, saved, and accumulated wealth because it devalues existing wealth.

Look at it this way. You have $100 in the bank. The government prints another $100 and pumps it into the economy in the form of "entitlements" payments. That makes your hard earned $100 worth on $50 in terms of buying power. That is what inflation does.

In theory, although it has never happened in the real world, if the supply of money in circulation was to decrease (deflation) by 50% then your saved $100 would increase in value. Its buying power would be double what it was when the supply of money was twice as big.

Deflation seems good, because prices for everything you buy would naturally come down, but it would be a disaster for anyone who had borrowed money on long term credit, such as a 30 year mortgage to buy a house. You would have to pay back every borrowed dollar with a dollar that was worth twice as much as the one that you borrowed. At the same time, the value of the house would decrease in direct relation to the deflation. Say you paid $100,000 for the house, then the money supply shrank by 50%, you would be able to sell if for only $50,000.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#52 Mar 24, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
There is one way for the government to pay it back and not raise taxes. The government owns the printing press at the U.S. Mint. It can print money and pump it into the economy by paying it out as Social Security and welfare. Inflation is just a stealth way of taxing those who have worked hard, saved, and accumulated wealth because it devalues existing wealth.
Look at it this way. You have $100 in the bank. The government prints another $100 and pumps it into the economy in the form of "entitlements" payments. That makes your hard earned $100 worth on $50 in terms of buying power. That is what inflation does.
In theory, although it has never happened in the real world, if the supply of money in circulation was to decrease (deflation) by 50% then your saved $100 would increase in value. Its buying power would be double what it was when the supply of money was twice as big.
Deflation seems good, because prices for everything you buy would naturally come down, but it would be a disaster for anyone who had borrowed money on long term credit, such as a 30 year mortgage to buy a house. You would have to pay back every borrowed dollar with a dollar that was worth twice as much as the one that you borrowed. At the same time, the value of the house would decrease in direct relation to the deflation. Say you paid $100,000 for the house, then the money supply shrank by 50%, you would be able to sell if for only $50,000.
Now the govt prints money to pay back money it shouldn't have taken in the first place.That's a bad idea. Once the govt starts printing money to pay for things it has no business doing it will keep doing things it has no business doing.We need to go back to gold. It can't be printed; the govt can't devalue it, inflate it, control it or use it to control you. SS should stop right now along with welfare. That's ugly but there is no painless way out of this mess. And the last thing we want to do is let the govt print money to pay for bad behavior.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#53 Mar 24, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
There is one way for the government to pay it back and not raise taxes. The government owns the printing press at the U.S. Mint. It can print money and pump it into the economy by paying it out as Social Security and welfare. Inflation is just a stealth way of taxing those who have worked hard, saved, and accumulated wealth because it devalues existing wealth.
Look at it this way. You have $100 in the bank. The government prints another $100 and pumps it into the economy in the form of "entitlements" payments. That makes your hard earned $100 worth on $50 in terms of buying power. That is what inflation does.
In theory, although it has never happened in the real world, if the supply of money in circulation was to decrease (deflation) by 50% then your saved $100 would increase in value. Its buying power would be double what it was when the supply of money was twice as big.
Deflation seems good, because prices for everything you buy would naturally come down, but it would be a disaster for anyone who had borrowed money on long term credit, such as a 30 year mortgage to buy a house. You would have to pay back every borrowed dollar with a dollar that was worth twice as much as the one that you borrowed. At the same time, the value of the house would decrease in direct relation to the deflation. Say you paid $100,000 for the house, then the money supply shrank by 50%, you would be able to sell if for only $50,000.
And why do you support welfare. Why do you support people who will not work?
LiberTEA

Madisonville, KY

#54 Mar 25, 2013
SHAFT wrote:
<quoted text>Now the govt prints money to pay back money it shouldn't have taken in the first place.That's a bad idea. Once the govt starts printing money to pay for things it has no business doing it will keep doing things it has no business doing.We need to go back to gold. It can't be printed; the govt can't devalue it, inflate it, control it or use it to control you. SS should stop right now along with welfare. That's ugly but there is no painless way out of this mess. And the last thing we want to do is let the govt print money to pay for bad behavior.
I never said that the government should print money and inflate its way out of debt, I just pointed out that the government can do that.

Going back to gold seems like a good idea, but it is not. For one thing there is not enough gold to replace every dollar in the economy on a 1 for 1 basis. Government would have to either replace many hundreds or thousands of dollars with one gold dollar or make the $1 gold coins so small that you'd have to encase the pinhead size gold coin in plastic or something. There are other problems too. For instance, what are you going to do about debts? If you replace paper with gold on anything less than a 1 for 1 ratio you would have to adjust the amount owed on debts downward in proportion to the paper-for-gold rate otherwise it would have the same effect as deflation.

That $100,000 house that someone has a 30 year mortgage on would suddenly be worth say $2,500 in the new gold money, but the mortgage would still be for $100,000 less whatever had been paid on its principal. The paid off amount usually isn't much until near the end of the 30 years. Most of the early payments are interest. So you would have to adjust the face amount of all debts that private individuals owe downward to reflect the paper-to-gold exchange rate. It would be an accountant's nightmare.

You would also hear people with savings accounts that aren't smart enough to understand the transition yelling, "They're taking my hard earned $100,000 and only leaving me $2,500!" The idea would never fly.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#55 Mar 25, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that the government should print money and inflate its way out of debt, I just pointed out that the government can do that.
Going back to gold seems like a good idea, but it is not. For one thing there is not enough gold to replace every dollar in the economy on a 1 for 1 basis. Government would have to either replace many hundreds or thousands of dollars with one gold dollar or make the $1 gold coins so small that you'd have to encase the pinhead size gold coin in plastic or something. There are other problems too. For instance, what are you going to do about debts? If you replace paper with gold on anything less than a 1 for 1 ratio you would have to adjust the amount owed on debts downward in proportion to the paper-for-gold rate otherwise it would have the same effect as deflation.
That $100,000 house that someone has a 30 year mortgage on would suddenly be worth say $2,500 in the new gold money, but the mortgage would still be for $100,000 less whatever had been paid on its principal. The paid off amount usually isn't much until near the end of the 30 years. Most of the early payments are interest. So you would have to adjust the face amount of all debts that private individuals owe downward to reflect the paper-to-gold exchange rate. It would be an accountant's nightmare.
You would also hear people with savings accounts that aren't smart enough to understand the transition yelling, "They're taking my hard earned $100,000 and only leaving me $2,500!" The idea would never fly.
How do you know there is not enough gold in the ground beneath to replace every dollar? And what makes you think its the govts job to give us gold coins? Gold is gold no matter what shape its in or how you get it. And if its not a good idea then why is china and India stockpiling gold?
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#56 Mar 25, 2013
And one more thing LiberTea, the only people that seems to be against the gold standard are liberal democrat socialist. Why is that?
LiberTEA

Madisonville, KY

#57 Mar 25, 2013
SHAFT wrote:
<quoted text>...what makes you think its the govts job to give us gold coins?
Because the Constitution of the United States says it is the government's job. Article 1, Section 8:

"Congress shall have power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

As to gold enough in the ground to replace every paper dollar with a gold dollar, remember that old saying about counting chickens before the eggs are hatched?

Think about what you are saying. It sounds like anarchy.

Going to gold money would wreck this country's economy and set off an avalanche of bankruptcies, economic upheavals, and revolutions that would take the whole world's capitalist enonomy down with it. It might even cause civilization itself to collapse. We enter a global Dark Age like the one that fell over Europe at the end of the Roman Empire.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#58 Mar 25, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Constitution of the United States says it is the government's job. Article 1, Section 8:
"Congress shall have power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
As to gold enough in the ground to replace every paper dollar with a gold dollar, remember that old saying about counting chickens before the eggs are hatched?
Think about what you are saying. It sounds like anarchy.
Going to gold money would wreck this country's economy and set off an avalanche of bankruptcies, economic upheavals, and revolutions that would take the whole world's capitalist enonomy down with it. It might even cause civilization itself to collapse. We enter a global Dark Age like the one that fell over Europe at the end of the Roman Empire.
Gold is gold. It doesn't matter if you go mining for it or if the govt gives it. Its still gold. The constitution says you can't counterfeit the coin. So if I bring you a hunk of gold we can trade with it along as I don't frabricate a coin out of it.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#59 Mar 25, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Constitution of the United States says it is the government's job. Article 1, Section 8:
"Congress shall have power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
As to gold enough in the ground to replace every paper dollar with a gold dollar, remember that old saying about counting chickens before the eggs are hatched?
Think about what you are saying. It sounds like anarchy.
Going to gold money would wreck this country's economy and set off an avalanche of bankruptcies, economic upheavals, and revolutions that would take the whole world's capitalist enonomy down with it. It might even cause civilization itself to collapse. We enter a global Dark Age like the one that fell over Europe at the end of the Roman Empire.
That last paragraph is a damn joke. This guy thinks if we go to gold all civilization may collapse. What he doesn't realize is that gold has been used as money for thousands of years and civilization is still here. Sir you think if govt doesn't control everything then we have anarchy. That is typical liberal crap! And you still haven't answered my question: If gold is so bad why are countries like china and India buying so much of it with our money that we keep giving them? And why do you want the govt to keep funding welfare?
LiberTEA

Cadiz, KY

#60 Mar 25, 2013
SHAFT wrote:
<quoted text>That last paragraph is a damn joke. This guy thinks if we go to gold all civilization may collapse. What he doesn't realize is that gold has been used as money for thousands of years and civilization is still here. Sir you think if govt doesn't control everything then we have anarchy. That is typical liberal crap! And you still haven't answered my question: If gold is so bad why are countries like china and India buying so much of it with our money that we keep giving them? And why do you want the govt to keep funding welfare?
I thought you had some sense, but you are jsut as big of an idiot as Anonymouse if not bigger. What you are talking about is a barter economy. There is no way in hell the modern world economy could operate that way.

You have also just answered your original question at the start of this thread.

I happen to be an ex-Republican. I quit the party because anarchist idiots like you have hijacked it, and I have just played you like a fiddle.
SHAFT

Rockford, TN

#61 Mar 25, 2013
LiberTEA wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you had some sense, but you are jsut as big of an idiot as Anonymouse if not bigger. What you are talking about is a barter economy. There is no way in hell the modern world economy could operate that way.
You have also just answered your original question at the start of this thread.
I happen to be an ex-Republican. I quit the party because anarchist idiots like you have hijacked it, and I have just played you like a fiddle.
Barter? Did I say anything like trading chickens for a house? Or a cow for a house? Or bananas for apples. No. I said gold has been used for money for thousands of years.Not only gold but also precious metals like silver. Even today people are still stockpiling gold and silver. China is buying huge amounts of gold. They are not talking bartering. Why? And why do you want the govt to keep funding welfare?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hopkinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christian County, junk car capital of Kentucky! 14 min UK Mom 5
trad trash 45 min ewwww 5
Haunted House 48 min Bela 4
Liquor Barn to open in new shopping center. 1 hr justobserving 7
Kris Rager back in jail 1 hr ohno 1
Tray Kranz 1 hr Wave runner 7
Who is Stevie Tucker 1 hr Crows feet 12
Deputy diagnosticed with CMS Tue Too bad 10

Hopkinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hopkinsville Mortgages