The lowering of expectations.

[techs]

Man, does anyone remember when we actually judged our policies in this country in a realistic manner?
I can't remember the last thing we discussed in terms of how large a success it was.
The argument over Iraq seems to vary between total disaster, major disaster, unprecented disaster.
Just today the housing market reported a good month, and the markets are saying this averted a "total" disaster for homebuilders this spring.
(http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/realestate/10358754.html)
And its reported as "good news".

Somehow any day gas prices are not at an all time high is a victory.
Somehow any growth in workers incomes, even it is less than inflation, is somehow a good thing. I can remember just a few years ago when workers in America, in terms of real growth in wages, did so virtually every year. For over 50 years.

Now we celebrate not just less growth. But actual real wage losses.

And we seem to be able to lower our expectations at the drop of a hat. We were going to change the whole middle east for the better by invading Iraq. The Iraqis secretly loved us. The oil will flow.
Now if we can get out without having to admit total defeat it will somehow be a 'victory'

So sad.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

 

[MobileLoser]

America is facing a lot of challenges, and the Iraq war is a huge distraction that makes tackling issues such as Social Security solvency, tax reform, current account deficits, etc. more difficult.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: techs
Man, does anyone remember when we actually judged our policies in this country in a realistic manner?

Based on your typical thread I don?t think you have ever had realistic expectations.

To point?
We all tend to judge our side with some leniency, but we expect the other side to be perfect.
You see that behavior all over this board.
?Gonzalez lied to congress!! He must be fired!!? vs. ?Clinton lied to the American people, but it was only about sex.?
We all do it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

Hmm, to be fair, the economy was already faltering at the end of Clinton's term. Not due to Clinton per se, but due to EXTREMELY overvalued tech stocks correcting themselves.

I agree, though, that Bush has made poor economic choices, and any gains seem to have primarily gone to the richest 10% or so, along with tons of new corporate welfare, and ridiculous spending on folly like Iraq.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

It's a lot worse with Bush; the decline in expectations goes back to Nixon.

Before that - well, LBJ cut the permanent poverty rate in the country by a third with the Great Society, passed laws against racism after a century following the civil war (and costing the democrats the White House most elections for a generation), etc.; JFK led the nation to put a man on the moon in the days of relatively primitive technology, created the Peace Corps and many other innovations in government; before him, Eisenhower built the nation's highway system; FDR led the nation out of the republican depression and winning WWII, etc.

But especially beginning with Reagan, the evil grandfatherly spokesman for saying the principles of our founding fathers - the public having a democratically elected government that actually acts in the welfare of the people - are wrong, the purpose of government stopped being nearly as much about the good of the people, and started to represent the very wealthy and corporate class, and the wealth of the nation began a historic redistribution from most Americans to a very few, as more Americans' wages froze.

It's up to the people to elect the next 'real' president again; we haven't really had one since the 60's.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
Man, does anyone remember when we actually judged our policies in this country in a realistic manner?

Based on your typical thread I don?t think you have ever had realistic expectations.

To point?
We all tend to judge our side with some leniency, but we expect the other side to be perfect.
You see that behavior all over this board.
?Gonzalez lied to congress!! He must be fired!!? vs. ?Clinton lied to the American people, but it was only about sex.?
We all do it.

Gonzalez lied to congress about screwing the american people (taxpayers) to benefit himself and a few other "elites" and/or corporations. This directly negatively affects 300,000,000 people (or at least the tax paying %age of them).

Clinton lied to congress / the american people about getting a blowjob from an intern, something that really only affects himself, his wife, and the intern (and also possibly his child, indirectly).


If you can't see the difference there, you are a lost cause.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Gonzalez lied to congress about screwing the american people (taxpayers) to benefit himself and a few other "elites" and/or corporations. This directly negatively affects 300,000,000 people (or at least the tax paying %age of them).

Clinton lied to congress / the american people about getting a blowjob from an intern, something that really only affects himself, his wife, and the intern (and also possibly his child, indirectly).

If you can't see the difference there, you are a lost cause.

What are you talking about?
The Gonzalez ?lie? was about the legal firing of the DAs. (Go look in any thread about the subject)

I have no clue what this screwing of the American people is about, perhaps you can explain what you mean.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

Hmm, to be fair, the economy was already faltering at the end of Clinton's term. Not due to Clinton per se, but due to EXTREMELY overvalued tech stocks correcting themselves.

I agree, though, that Bush has made poor economic choices, and any gains seem to have primarily gone to the richest 10% or so, along with tons of new corporate welfare, and ridiculous spending on folly like Iraq.

No that's not fair at all.

In fact it has been shown that many of the "overvalued tech stocks" of the time are actually up and running now. They were simply ahead of themselves.

Their successes now can and must be attributed to Clinton and not Bush, "to be fair".

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Gonzalez lied to congress about screwing the american people (taxpayers) to benefit himself and a few other "elites" and/or corporations. This directly negatively affects 300,000,000 people (or at least the tax paying %age of them).

Clinton lied to congress / the american people about getting a blowjob from an intern, something that really only affects himself, his wife, and the intern (and also possibly his child, indirectly).

If you can't see the difference there, you are a lost cause.

What are you talking about?
The Gonzalez ?lie? was about the legal firing of the DAs. (Go look in any thread about the subject)

I have no clue what this screwing of the American people is about, perhaps you can explain what you mean.

Keep dodging.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Gonzalez lied to congress about screwing the american people (taxpayers) to benefit himself and a few other "elites" and/or corporations. This directly negatively affects 300,000,000 people (or at least the tax paying %age of them).

Clinton lied to congress / the american people about getting a blowjob from an intern, something that really only affects himself, his wife, and the intern (and also possibly his child, indirectly).

If you can't see the difference there, you are a lost cause.

The Gonzalez ?lie? was about the legal firing of the DAs. (Go look in any thread about the subject)
(Emphasis mine - Craig234)

Later, Goodling said that, despite invoking the Fifth, she did not believe she had violated any laws. In fact, the Hatch Act and a host of other civil service laws and federal rules make it clear that the aggressive politicization of federal agencies is illegal. Under questioning from Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott, Goodling admitted as much -- albeit, grudgingly.

Noting that the former Justice Department aide has acknowledged making personnel decisions based on political considerations, Scott asked, "Do you believe that it was legal or illegal for you to take those political considerations into account?"

Goodling stumbled several times before admitting, "The best I can say is that I know I took political considerations into account."

"Do you believe they were illegal or legal?" asked Scott.

"I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," she answered, confirming that Regent University graduates are indeed trained to speak in a lawyerly manner.

Scott pressed: "Did you break the law? Is it against the law to take those considerations into account?"

"I believe I crossed the lines," Goodling replied, "but I didn't mean to."

By "crossed the lines," Scott asked, did she mean that she had violated federal civil service laws?

Goodling responded: "I crossed the line of the civil service rules."

Scott clarified that those "rules" are, in fact, "laws."

Link

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MobileLoser
America is facing a lot of challenges, and the Iraq war is a huge distraction that makes tackling issues such as Social Security solvency, tax reform, current account deficits, etc. more difficult.

To add onto that, I would say being focused on Iraq takes our attention away from a real threat - the Islamists in our country with their recruiting, training, and paramilitary camps.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MobileLoser
America is facing a lot of challenges, and the Iraq war is a huge distraction that makes tackling issues such as Social Security solvency, tax reform, current account deficits, etc. more difficult.

To add onto that, I would say being focused on Iraq takes our attention away from a real threat - the Islamists in our country with their recruiting, training, and paramilitary camps.

Haven't we already decided that this is crazy talk? Why isn't anyone pissed off by the countless redneck run shooting ranges/clubs? They tend to spout nationalist USA BS.

So the owner is Islamic... I didn't know that was a crime. Also, did you know that they let whites, christians, atheists, and females in? Real terror camps, those gun/shooting clubs.

You're quite good at listening to "The Patriot" radio station, what else did the neo-cons teach you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

I loved Clinton, and voted for him both times, but what you're saying is not true at all, Dave (as usual). The economy faltered quite a bit for most of Clinton's first term, and then the dot-com blew out well before Clinton left office.

As usual, Dave, you can't tell the truth. You use mischaracterizing phrases like "your hero" and you misrepresent the actual facts in favor partisan hackery. I've had recent conversations with the mods that this type of behaviour (antagonization and mischaracterization) should be considered the same as personal insults/attacks, and they are in agreement.
Are you still blaming Bush for Wal-Mart and outsourcing to China even though that bill was Clinton's baby?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I just can't wait to see how thoroughly Goodling embarrasses herself & the sham of a law school she attended. That a 33 year old graduate from a tier 4 school founded by a TV preacher landed the position she has is insane & can only be explained by ideologues compromising quality & the best interests of this country to support their own agenda. Which is, in fact, illegal.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MobileLoser
America is facing a lot of challenges, and the Iraq war is a huge distraction that makes tackling issues such as Social Security solvency, tax reform, current account deficits, etc. more difficult.

To add onto that, I would say being focused on Iraq takes our attention away from a real threat - the Islamists in our country with their recruiting, training, and paramilitary camps.

Haven't we already decided that this is crazy talk? Why isn't anyone pissed off by the countless redneck run shooting ranges/clubs? They tend to spout nationalist USA BS.

So the owner is Islamic... I didn't know that was a crime. Also, did you know that they let whites, christians, atheists, and females in? Real terror camps, those gun/shooting clubs.

You're quite good at listening to "The Patriot" radio station, what else did the neo-cons teach you?

It is absolute crazy talk. I have ties with the Middle-eastern/Muslim community here in my area, and they are nothing like Jaskalas described. Most of them are proud hard-working entrepreneurial American capitalists (similar to Asian immigrants in many ways), very generous and kind, and (shocking though this might be to the neocon propagandists) mostly secular and non-religious. A Persian friend of mine lamented that, on a recent trip to Tehran to visit his parents, he couldn't drink while he was there (as an Islamic state, Iran has strict prohibition). And the Lebanese and Arabians I know are some of the biggest partiers I have ever met! The middle-eastern restaurants are nothing but music, dancing, drinking, and hookah smoking all frickin night!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

It's a lot worse with Bush; the decline in expectations goes back to Nixon.

Before that - well, LBJ cut the permanent poverty rate in the country by a third with the Great Society, passed laws against racism after a century following the civil war (and costing the democrats the White House most elections for a generation), etc.; JFK led the nation to put a man on the moon in the days of relatively primitive technology, created the Peace Corps and many other innovations in government; before him, Eisenhower built the nation's highway system; FDR led the nation out of the republican depression and winning WWII, etc.

But especially beginning with Reagan, the evil grandfatherly spokesman for saying the principles of our founding fathers - the public having a democratically elected government that actually acts in the welfare of the people - are wrong, the purpose of government stopped being nearly as much about the good of the people, and started to represent the very wealthy and corporate class, and the wealth of the nation began a historic redistribution from most Americans to a very few, as more Americans' wages froze.

It's up to the people to elect the next 'real' president again; we haven't really had one since the 60's.

You are comical.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

Hmm, to be fair, the economy was already faltering at the end of Clinton's term. Not due to Clinton per se, but due to EXTREMELY overvalued tech stocks correcting themselves.

I agree, though, that Bush has made poor economic choices, and any gains seem to have primarily gone to the richest 10% or so, along with tons of new corporate welfare, and ridiculous spending on folly like Iraq.

No that's not fair at all.

In fact it has been shown that many of the "overvalued tech stocks" of the time are actually up and running now. They were simply ahead of themselves.

Their successes now can and must be attributed to Clinton and not Bush, "to be fair".

Hahaha. Then why are you crying about the gas prices? They are simply ahead of themselves.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

Hmm, to be fair, the economy was already faltering at the end of Clinton's term. Not due to Clinton per se, but due to EXTREMELY overvalued tech stocks correcting themselves.

I agree, though, that Bush has made poor economic choices, and any gains seem to have primarily gone to the richest 10% or so, along with tons of new corporate welfare, and ridiculous spending on folly like Iraq.

No that's not fair at all.

In fact it has been shown that many of the "overvalued tech stocks" of the time are actually up and running now. They were simply ahead of themselves.

Their successes now can and must be attributed to Clinton and not Bush, "to be fair".

Hahaha. Then why are you crying about the gas prices? They are simply ahead of themselves.

Simple. Dave was invested in dot-com stocks (and working in the tech industry) then, but not in energy stocks today. Keep in mind that Dave voted for GW in 2000, and was a registered Republican prior to. He switched to the Dems only after the tech bubble fully collapsed.

Most of the partisans here use their ideology as a disguise for their own selfishness. All their various rants, hackeries, finger-pointings, and pleas to think of the children and/or the poor are typically just some form of distraction from how their position on the issue in question benefits them personally. In a way, I'd find this type of blatant cynicism somewhat sickening, if it weren't for the fact that any form of pure ideological blind stupidity is even worse. Why they have to join their hateful little gangs of thugs, and why they can't just accept any type of system that treats all people fairly and equally and as they themselves would like to be treated as individual human beings, is just beyond me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
whats so sad is that so many of you only believe it started with Bush

Yes it did.

The U.S. did great under Clinton.

Your hero Bush has done all this damage since 2001.

Hmm, to be fair, the economy was already faltering at the end of Clinton's term. Not due to Clinton per se, but due to EXTREMELY overvalued tech stocks correcting themselves.

I agree, though, that Bush has made poor economic choices, and any gains seem to have primarily gone to the richest 10% or so, along with tons of new corporate welfare, and ridiculous spending on folly like Iraq.

No that's not fair at all.

In fact it has been shown that many of the "overvalued tech stocks" of the time are actually up and running now. They were simply ahead of themselves.

Their successes now can and must be attributed to Clinton and not Bush, "to be fair".

Hahaha. Then why are you crying about the gas prices? They are simply ahead of themselves.

Simple. Dave was invested in dot-com stocks (and working in the tech industry) then, but not in energy stocks today.

Keep in mind that Dave voted for GW in 2000, and was a registered Republican prior to.

He switched to the Dems only after the tech bubble fully collapsed.

So what is your answer, everyone should be in energy stocks???

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So what is your answer, everyone should be in energy stocks???

If I wasn't a poor college student, that's where my money would be invested right now...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So what is your answer, everyone should be in energy stocks???

Did you edit out the rest of my post there because this statement here proved the point I made in it? My answer is that you shouldn't be so selfish that you only get upset about people getting screwed over when it's not to your benefit, but support screwing people over when it is to your benefit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So what is your answer, everyone should be in energy stocks???

If I wasn't a poor college student, that's where my money would be invested right now...

Speculative boom-and-busts (aka liquidity bubbles) are always bad for an economy, no matter what they are. Much of what Dave bitches about is simply the inevitable fallout damage caused by the busting of the dot-com bubble. Much like whatever President gets elected in '08 will be forced to take much of the blame from the fallout of the housing and energy bubbles. Blaming either the boom or the bust is much like arguing over the chicken or the egg.