Why is there such a big deal about Bush and VA

[Predicto]

Ah...now San Francisco chimes in. The thread is complete.

My friend, is that the best you can do? Believe me, people have played the "lol Frisco" card on me many times here - it really doesn't answer what I posted, now does it?

[chomerics]

You can't tell me Democrats are for lower taxes. That's ridiculous.

Idle words AJ. Face it, my state pays less in tax % then your "conservative" state, yet we are for higher taxes right? Kind of doens;t make sense when you hold it up to scrutney of reality. In fact, I have been a proponent of tax cuts, and many liberals have as well. What you fail to realize is that liberals actually want to PAY for the tax cuts by curbing spending. What a novel approach, actually pay for something huh.

Conservative tax philosophy is wrong, and supply side economics does not work. Liberals want low taxes, but even more then that. liberals want a BALANCED BUDGET!!!! Something conservatives care absolutely nothing about.

On the contrary, those who wanted segregated schools in the 1950s were all Democrats, and they're also DEAD. This is the monumental blunder liberals make in misunderstanding the rest of the nation. Their concept of their fellow Americans is 50 years out of date. Also, no matter how you spin it, the mainstreaming of sexual perversion has absolutely no relationship to issues of racial equality. Keep trying to link it, but you will fail.

And it was the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are complaining about gays today. The old southern democrats are now the southern republican, do you agree? Is it not the same people who were against segregation? I am not talking about party affiliation, I am talking about the people who were against segregation to begin with, they are the exact same people who are complaining about how gay people are the scorge of the earth now.

[chomerics]

Uh huh. I've seen your posts...you have the stones to talk about "spreading propaganda"? :laugh:

Come on now AJ, your defense is "you do it to?"

That's not a defense, that's a cop-out. I brought up some pretty disturbing facts which conflict your view of modern politics, and how things work. You were called on it, and you come up with this???

Hell, at least throw me a bone, give me something to chew on, this is just dust. You haven't even bothered to show one of my posts where I outright lied like you did, at least bring something to the table. The search function is there, use it.

[AJ_Skins]

Idle words AJ. Face it, my state pays less in tax then your "conservative" state, yet we are for higher taxes right? Kind of doens;t make sense when you hold it up to scrutney of reality. In fact, I have been a proponent of tax cuts, and many liberals have as well. What you fail to realize is that liberals actually want to PAY for the tax cuts by curbing spending. What a novel approach, actually pay for something huh.

Conservative tax philosophy is wrong, and supply side economics does not work. Liberals want low taxes, but even more then that. liberals want a BALANCED BUDGET!!!! Something conservatives care absolutely nothing about.

Orwell is rolling in his grave.

And it was the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are complaining about gays today. The old southern democrats are now the southern republican, do you agree? Is in not the same people who were against segregation? I am not talking about party affiliation, I am talking about the people who were against segregation to begin with.

Again...the people who were in favor of segregation are generally dead, or about to be. When you say "the exact same people", you have to mean the exact same people. Otherwise you're just engaging in a convenient smear.

[AJ_Skins]

Come on now AJ, your defense is "you do it to?"

That's not a defense, that's a cop-out. I brought up some pretty disturbing facts which conflict your view of modern politics, and how things work. You were called on it, and you come up with this???

Hell, at least throw me a bone, give me something to chew on, this is just dust. You haven't even bothered to show one of my posts where I outright lied like you did, at least bring something to the table. The search function is there, use it.

When you argue that it's actually liberals who are for low taxes and spending cuts, what am I supposed to say? That's insane.

[Destino]

Born and raised in Virginia, and happy to be the heck out of there. As far as I can tell, the parasites live in the "real" Virginia of which you are so proud. Tax dollars are sucked out of NoVa and transferred downstate to those disciples of "limited government," year after year, decade after decade. It's easy to spout about limited government when you get services that you don't have to pay for.

Exactly. Those rugged real virginians to the south talk a good game but never fail to use NoVA as a piggy bank. Also last I checked NoVA and it's absolutely BOOMING economy and housing market is creating the favorable conditions in this state, not the other way around.

BTW - Warner created favorable conditions. Gilmore did not.

[Destino]

I think Chom is getting ahead of himself again. Liberals as a whole are not known for promoting tax cuts. However it is becoming a more popular idea in the democratic party, as is the idea of a balanced budget. You are seeing a lot more support from the base for those things then you did in the past.

[JimboDaMan]

That's surprising, although it has been about a week since I got gas, so it's probably that low here now as well.

You can't tell me Democrats are for lower taxes. That's ridiculous.

On the contrary, those who wanted segregated schools in the 1950s were all Democrats, and they're also DEAD. This is the monumental blunder liberals make in misunderstanding the rest of the nation. Their concept of their fellow Americans is 50 years out of date. Also, no matter how you spin it, the mainstreaming of sexual perversion has absolutely no relationship to issues of racial equality. Keep trying to link it, but you will fail.

AJ, what I can tell you, what I can prove to you, is that conservatives love taxes. But only when other people pay for them. Not only in Virginia, where those good god-fearin' southern conservatives enjoy without complaint sucking in all the pinko NOVA tax money they can git. But nationwide also, where those sturdy self-reliant red states dominate the top of the list of states slurping in money paid by blue states. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes to google up those numbers if you're so inclined.

[Destino]

AJ, what I can tell you, what I can prove to you, is that conservatives love taxes. But only when other people pay for them. Not only in Virginia, where those good god-fearin' southern conservatives enjoy without complaint sucking in all the pinko NOVA tax money they can git. But nationwide also, where those sturdy self-reliant red states dominate the top of the list of states slurping in money paid by blue states. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes to google up those numbers if you're so inclined.

If someone has these numbers I'd be happy to see them. It certainly is the case in VA, didn't know about the national situation though.

[JimboDaMan]

Im shocked I tell you SHOCKED that the non-liberal media is making this such a big story (insert as many sarcasm emoticons as possible here).

A popular conservative Democrat sitting Lt Gov held onto a seat held by an even more popular conservative Democrat. While a very Conservative Republican won the Lt Gov seat defeating a Dem and a Pat Robertson puppet won the AG seat.

This is supposed to be big news and a positive for the Democrats?

The big loser yesterday in the VA Gov election was Hillary Clinton. Mark Warner's status as a major player just skyrocketted.

Kilmer, I suppose the washington times, fox news, etc is in on that liberal slant also?

Whaddya got to support "popular...sitting Lt Gov"? Most polls had them running pretty much neck and neck, and a year ago you couldn't find 1 adult in 10 who knew Kaine's name. "Popular" makes a poor excuse for losing.

Of course its good news for the Dems, they won nearly every big competitive contest yesterday. And it was quite interesting to find Kilgore avoiding Bush throughout the race, then in desperation bringing him in at the eleventh hour only to find the remaining undecideds break for Kaine. Heck, even our beloved Extremeskins brother Kilmer17 is calling fellow conservative Dick Black, a multiple winner as a VA delegate, a "nutjob". I see wheels coming of that bus.

And from all that, you find that the "big loser" is a Democrat??? :laugh:

[AJ_Skins]

If someone has these numbers I'd be happy to see them. It certainly is the case in VA, didn't know about the national situation though.

It is true in a certain sense. However, there's a glaring hole in the argument, which is that it is the high-tax areas that have voted for their own high taxes, not the areas supposedly siphoning off the money. If liberals started arguing for low taxes, then everybody would agree.

[AJ_Skins]

Kilmer, I suppose the washington times, fox news, etc is in on that liberal slant also?

Whaddya got to support "popular...sitting Lt Gov"? Most polls had them running pretty much neck and neck, and a year ago you couldn't find 1 adult in 10 who knew Kaine's name. "Popular" makes a poor excuse for losing.

Of course its good news for the Dems, they won nearly every big competitive contest yesterday. And it was quite interesting to find Kilgore avoiding Bush throughout the race, then in desperation bringing him in at the eleventh hour only to find the remaining undecideds break for Kaine. Heck, even our beloved Extremeskins brother Kilmer17 is calling fellow conservative Dick Black, a multiple winner as a VA delegate, a "nutjob". I see wheels coming of that bus.

And from all that, you find that the "big loser" is a Democrat??? :laugh:

The big loser was VA. Aside from that, I don't think it has much meaning nationally. If anything, it will play a role in jolting the Republicans off their laurels.

[AJ_Skins]

AJ, what I can tell you, what I can prove to you, is that conservatives love taxes. But only when other people pay for them. Not only in Virginia, where those good god-fearin' southern conservatives enjoy without complaint sucking in all the pinko NOVA tax money they can git. But nationwide also, where those sturdy self-reliant red states dominate the top of the list of states slurping in money paid by blue states. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes to google up those numbers if you're so inclined.

It's simple. If liberals like you don't want high taxes, stop voting for people like Kaine.

[DjTj]

And if you look at the "gains" the Dems made, they were seats picked up by moderate Dems running against right wing nutjobs like Dick Black.

I hope, though, that the Dems sit back and pat themselves on the back thinking they've accomplished something. It will make next years election that more disappointing for them.

I hope that the Dems sit back and think, "If we run moderate sensible candidates, we can actually beat these right-wing nutjobs."

I hope the Republicans sit back and think, "If we keep running these right wing nutjobs, we're not going to be in power longer."

...I hope for fewer nutjobs and more politicians actually interested in governing.

[JimboDaMan]

It's simple. If liberals like you don't want high taxes, stop voting for people like Kaine.

Good response.

Destino, I googled it and this is not the entire list but you can get the gist of things at this link.

[zoony]

If I might interject...

The arguments made by Predicto, Destino, and JimboDaMan couldn't be more incorrect. A rudimentary understanding of economics would tell them this. I seriously mean not to offend any of you, but you are completely ignorant on this subject.

The economies that exist in the 'blue' states i.e. the Northeast, California, etc. WERE NOT built on socialist and liberal economic theory. Far from it. ALL of those areas have VERY conservative backgrounds, and as the economy boomed, social problems became more and more of an issue. That led to the socialist princibles that we see in those areas today... helping out those in need in the inner cities, etc.

And before any of you stamp your feet, just know that I don't think socialism in urban environments is necessarily a bad thing... but for ANY of you to pretend like those economies flourished and were built because of liberal economic policy, and are now supporting the rest of the 'ignorant' conservative country... that is truly laughable. And to be honest, I though that you were smarter than that. Especially you predicto... you went to the university of flippin chicago for crying out loud... the very institution for economic theory. :doh:

Fiscal liberals suck. Look no further than the rotting cesspool of cow dung that the europeans refer to as an economy. Suffocating taxes, high jobless rates, restricting barriers to entry and exit from markets, absolutely no matriculation of ideas, and no entrepreneurial (sp?) spirit. But when the European governments put their countries on the payroll they can turn out a decent product ... as long as they don't play fair and rip off American companies who pioneered the industry.

It is kind of sad... at least to me. The democrats would gain so many voters if they realized this... including yours truly.

.....

[Kilmer17]

I hope that the Dems sit back and think, "If we run moderate sensible candidates, we can actually beat these right-wing nutjobs."

I hope the Republicans sit back and think, "If we keep running these right wing nutjobs, we're not going to be in power longer."

...I hope for fewer nutjobs and more politicians actually interested in governing.

Well said.

[Destino]

If I might interject...

The arguments made by Predicto, Destino, and JimboDaMan couldn't be more incorrect. A rudimentary understanding of economics would tell them this. I seriously mean not to offend any of you, but you are completely ignorant on this subject.

Zoony I don’t take offense to what you wrote because it’s nonsense. You don’t even have a clue where the so called “socialist” policies came from. The social safety net was not begun as to combat social problems; they were introduced as one of the many safe guards to prevent another great depression. When people lost everything prior to this they lost their market power, as unemployment went up, sales went down….which further increased unemployment….rinse repeat.

Government spending of this type, slows down and limits the severity of economic recessions and one of the very few major reasons we consider our economy today to be great depression proof.

You are correct that the social policy of Europe isn’t very good….or I should say isn’t as effective at keeping unemployment at what we consider to be “full employment”. Too many transfer payments (read: hand outs) reduce the motivation to work. But a bigger factor is the insanely high tax situation, needed to fund this crazy policy. They never made the move from demand side to supply side economics like we did in this country.

So what was this about completely ignorant?

[zoony]

Government spending of this type slows down and limits the severity of economic recessions and one of the very few major reasons we consider our economy today to be great depression proof.

Keynesian economics is a dinasour brother.

As for the rest of your post, I think you've confused liberal economic policy with liberal social policy. I was responding to the premise/notion that liberal economic theory spawned the economies that we see in the Northeast and West today... when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

My only comment on liberal social policy was stating that it is, by and large, a response to societal problems and issues that exist when a very large population coexist in a very small area, due to a flourishing economy. This is most definitely true. But because most proponents fail to see the line that exists between social and economic liberalism... that is when we run into trouble.

When proponents of the aforementioned social policy hold up said economies for all to see, and scream at the top of their lungs that liberalism in all forms is the economy's friend, I laugh. Out loud. And so should you.

The sad thing is, liberal fiscal policy has given liberal social policy a bad name. The republicans have done a masterful job of lumping those schools of thought into the same category, and refering to them on a national scale as Democrats. :doh: The worst part about it is, democrats themselves believe the hype... as referenced by several members in this discussion. Yourself included

.......

[Predicto]

If I might interject...

The arguments made by Predicto, Destino, and JimboDaMan couldn't be more incorrect. A rudimentary understanding of economics would tell them this. I seriously mean not to offend any of you, but you are completely ignorant on this subject.

The economies that exist in the 'blue' states i.e. the Northeast, California, etc. WERE NOT built on socialist and liberal economic theory. Far from it. ALL of those areas have VERY conservative backgrounds, and as the economy boomed, social problems became more and more of an issue. That led to the socialist princibles that we see in those areas today... helping out those in need in the inner cities, etc.

And before any of you stamp your feet, just know that I don't think socialism in urban environments is necessarily a bad thing... but for ANY of you to pretend like those economies flourished and were built because of liberal economic policy, and are now supporting the rest of the 'ignorant' conservative country... that is truly laughable. And to be honest, I though that you were smarter than that. Especially you predicto... you went to the university of flippin chicago for crying out loud... the very institution for economic theory. :doh:

Fiscal liberals suck. Look no further than the rotting cesspool of cow dung that the europeans refer to as an economy. Suffocating taxes, high jobless rates, restricting barriers to entry and exit from markets, absolutely no matriculation of ideas, and no entrepreneurial (sp?) spirit. But when the European governments put their countries on the payroll they can turn out a decent product ... as long as they don't play fair and rip off American companies who pioneered the industry.

It is kind of sad... at least to me. The democrats would gain so many voters if they realized this... including yours truly.

.....

Umm... I didn't make any of the arguments that you attribute to me here. Nor do I agree with them. Contrary to your characterizations, I am not in the least a socialist. I do believe we need a social safety net, but that net serves more goals than just being "nice" - without it you have too much unrest in the populace for stability. Stability produces prosperity.

Don't lump me in with the Spartacus Youth League dorks. Maybe on this board I am very liberal, but in San Francisco, I am considered pretty conservative. The truth, of course, is somewhere in between.

[zoony]

Umm... I didn't make any of the arguments that you attribute to me here. Nor do I agree with them. .

If I lumped you into the wrong category I apologize

I was going off this quote...

Originally Posted by Predicto

Born and raised in Virginia, and happy to be the heck out of there. As far as I can tell, the parasites live in the "real" Virginia of which you are so proud. Tax dollars are sucked out of NoVa and transferred downstate to those disciples of "limited government," year after year, decade after decade. It's easy to spout about limited government when you get services that you don't have to pay for.

I assumed that to be a post written by someone claiming that conservative economic thought was a luxury afforded by fiscal liberal policy makers in the know.

Obviously there was some assumption on my part... anywho ...

[Destino]

Keynesian economics is a dinasour brother.

No doubt about it. The shift to supply side economics was needed later (but don't tell the Europeans that).

As for the rest of your post, I think you've confused liberal economic policy with liberal social policy. I was responding to the premise/notion that liberal economic theory spawned the economies that we see in the Northeast and West today... when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

My only comment on liberal social policy was stating that it is, by and large, a response to societal problems and issues that exist when a very large population coexist in a very small area, due to a flourishing economy. This is most definitely true. But because most proponents fail to see the line that exists between social and economic liberalism... that is when we run into trouble.

When proponents of the aforementioned social policy hold up said economies for all to see, and scream at the top of their lungs that liberalism in all forms is the economy's friend, I laugh. Out loud. And so should you.

The sad thing is, liberal fiscal policy has given liberal social policy a bad name. The republicans have done a masterful job of lumping those schools of thought into the same category, and refering to them on a national scale as Democrats. :doh: The worst part about it is, democrats themselves believe the hype... as referenced by several members in this discussion. Yourself included

.......

I don't tend to think economics in terms of liberal and conservative, since those are mostly hot air. Conservatives claim to want to cut spending, but that's never actually happened. Perhaps a smaller increase here or there when compared to the previous years increase, but actual overall cuts? Those are fiction, and I haven't seen evidence that they would help the economy anyway so maybe that's a good thing.

As for liberal economic policy, that's more of a funding issue then anything else. The type of liberalism you are talking about, European, doesn't really exist in the United States. They need high taxes to fund their generous social spending, I've seen very little evidence of economic theory at all. My favorite exmple has to be the time the French switched to a 7 hour work day to solve the unemployment problem....that's not economic theory that's social policy and blind ideology pretending to be fiscal policy.

In the US liberal economic theory and conservative economic theory is closer in practice then in rhetoric. Reagan, to his credit, put in supply side policy and everything since then has really revolved around this basic idea. Liberals want to leave taxes most as they are and balance budgets lately. Conservatives have wanted to continue cutting taxes but have yet to find the backbone to cut spending to go with it.

Before that both parties operated on the demand side. So I don't see how you can fault one political ideology over another, or credit one for that matter. Maybe it's just tradtional protestant work ethic?

There are some differences however. As some have mentioned in this thread liberals tend to be more willing to pay for their own expenses while conservatives talk a good game and spend other peoples tax money. Also Carter should be mentioned...we don't need any more of those in the white house.

[wskin44]

George Bush called my house yesterday to say he was backing Kilgore So nice to hear his voice on my answering machine

He called me too. How special.

[chomerics]

When you argue that it's actually liberals who are for low taxes and spending cuts, what am I supposed to say? That's insane.

I have nothing more to add, you seem quite content with eating your foot.

[chomerics]

The sad thing is, liberal fiscal policy has given liberal social policy a bad name. The republicans have done a masterful job of lumping those schools of thought into the same category, and refering to them on a national scale as Democrats. :doh: The worst part about it is, democrats themselves believe the hype... as referenced by several members in this discussion. Yourself included ......

Zoony, I completely disagree with the notion about liberal economic policy. You were right 25 years ago, but not today. Look at the fiscal platform of Kerry, it was mainstream economics. . . And BTW, if Keynesian is a dinosour, Laffer is a unicorn

BTW, I personally think supply side theory is BS, well at least, it didn't work in the 80's and it doesn't work in the 00's. All supply side theory does is increase the deficit and decrease the federal revenue stream to the point where they have to cut social programs. It is complete bassackwards economics. You don't cut taxes in order to cut government down the line, you cut government now, SO you can cut taxes. It is complete fiscal irresponsibility if you ask me.

Now, if you say that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, then I would agree with you, and supply side is not a sham, but to claim to know where society is, and to ALSO say that we are right of the curve. . . is well. . . . completely laughable.