what does defense spending or conservative economics have to do with the current financial mess? it was the Democrats and liberals in general who whined that poor people should have houses too and so they should be given loans they couldn't afford. you know? those "subprime" mortgages we keep hearing about? the ones Messiah Obama said were a good idea.

when Obama sets off the Second Great Depression, I'll be happy that Palin will come in to clean the mess.

Holy shit did this thread bring out the hayseeds. People actually think Reagan improved this Country? LOL...Please, to anyone thinking anything remotely in this direction, talk to world economists, not right wing think tank economists heard on Hannity or Fox, and you will get a univeral answer. Reagan was extremely successful in shifting the tax burden away from Business and the Wealthy, and onto the backs of the average American. It was a brilliant idea for those that benefited (thanks Ron) that actually worked, but was absolutey one of the worst policies in American history, esepecially for the average American. Clinton and the Democrats made it worse by following most of the same policies, not all of them, but passing the Conservative "Free Trade" policies with NAFTA, further dismantling the manufacturing base of the economy was a huge mistake. Surprisingly, even still, under Clinton, the average American did better under his presidency then both Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr..

Remember, look into history and ask yoursellf this question, what happened shorty after EVERY tax cut that's ever been passed in this Country? Take a wild guess. A Reccession, and at one point, a Depression. We're in the condition right now not only becuase Gov spending has risen out of control under Conservatives in office(famous Conservative Deficit spending), but enormous tax cuts that were completely wreckless to the budget, especially in at a time of War when our Biggest Social Program, the Miliatary, went to work  on two Fronts. Talk about flat out dumb.

This is all very basic and simple to understand, but for some, they've been drinking the juice for so long, this is probably so disastrous to their conscience, it's demoralizing on a very personal level (as noted by some of the posts in this thread). Believing the lie of American Exceptionalism, the beacon of light, it's all BS. Bottom line, we're imperialists, plain and simple. The people in positions of power(Business and Government are one at this point, just read a little to figure this out) could give a shit about the population, so it's up to us to police this nonsense and push for what's best as whole, making comprimises here and there since it's just not practical for everyone to get their own personal interests taken into consideration. The general consensus is almost always overlooked by politicians. Problem is, there's too many uninformed out there, or badly misguided individuals, thanks in large part to talk radio, which is now finally losing steam and not catching on with the aging Gen X and Y'ers. A good thing now that the net dominates most information, and allows for a much better chance of getting several different positions and opinions, instead of a steady homogenous stream of one line thinking over the airwaves.

anyways, on the topic of the thread, you cannot guage how liberal or conservative the country is by which candidate they voted for, but by how they vote the issues.

from what i hear, most blacks in California voted FOR Obama AND FOR Prop 8. this suggests that as a segment black Californians are socially conservative, or at least center-right. this is but one example. if we had other issue-based polls, i bet they'd say the same thing.

it's a bad year for republicans, soured by a lackluster candidate (McCain) and a financial crisis. on the other hand, you have a history shattering candidate: the first potential black President.

there is no good reason to think the country is lurching left. at least not that i've seen

LOLZ...you know nothing about the sub prime lending mess, at all. The orginal intent of sub prime lending was a great idea, help people join the "ownership" class by easing the monthly burden, but still making them pay for property. The problem was, the program was NEVER intended for the middle class, it was intended for the lower classes, but the private companies jump all over it and sold it to the middle class, in mass numbers and sold and made a ton of money on BAD PAPER. The years it failed and came to ahead were between 2004 and 2007, when red flags starting popping up all over the place. The Democrats should have done more, they did make proposals, but the problem? The Republicans controlled all three branches of Government during this period, and were in the back pockets of most banking and lending intertests, mostly on the right but also on the left to keep most quiet. There's much blame, but it's was the conservatives fault in the end, they knew it, and allowed it to crash and burn, now we're all paying the price. Wake up and read.

And Palin? LOLOLOLOLZ

like marx?

i notice you can't actually be bothered to quote any of these world economists, nor give an analysis of what their views are and why they are right.

the tax burden was, still is, and always will be mostly on the business and wealthy. any shift more towards the average American was probably more fair anyways. you have to remember, up to and through the Carter admin, the top income tax rate was 70%. could you imagine paying a 70% income tax?

because Clinton had to play centrist, because Republicans in Congress wouldn't allow him to do what he truly wanted to do.

wow you are wholy ignorant of history. the Great Depression was not caused by a tax cut. it started as a recession, much like the one before, and would have probably corrected on it's own. however, it was exasperated by a bad monetary policy under the Fed, Hoover's interventionist policies, and by FDR's New Deal itself. The worst point in the Great Depression was in 37-38, around 4 years after the New Deal started.

i guess that whole financial crisis or the sky rocketing gas prices had nothing to do with it. X-/

ROFL. talk radio!!!?? seriously dude, go back to the cave you crawled out of.

this cannot make sense even to you. subprime loans by their very nature have higher interest, because of the higher risk, and therefore actually costs lower class individuals more. yeah, let's help the poor by hosing them to death. great idea.

really? Barney Frank seemed to think there was no problem at all.

it was Bush and McCain that made the proposals. Democrats in the Senate filibustered their efforts.

like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? oh no, that's Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Obama.

Medicare +, shifting the tax burden on people like myself and other business owners and away from the general public, more education spending, more Domestic Infrastructure spending, Net Neutrality (Obama was in favor, McCain was "hazy" at best", huge issue for the tech savy), Pro-Choice, Pro-Science(I can't believe it's even an issue!!! lol) Stong belief in the Seperation of Church and State, Anti-Patriot Act(reflection on Bush) etc..etc..these are all Obama's points he ran on, and repearted for 2 years straight over and over and over and over, and was the reason why he connected with the majority of people. If you were only watching Fox News, then you never heard any of this, and only heard the noise, afterall, that's their job, and will be for the next few years. 

While California went anti-gay marriage(still civil unions), Connecticut voted yes to Gay Marriage..it's a civil rights issue when you boil it down, not a religous issue, which the churches are trying to make it out to be.  If you've ever met a Gay person, they'll tell you , it's Biological, not a choice as to who they are attracted too. Another Pro-Science on the let, anti-Science on the right. If you take all the issues and put them on the table, Blacks are absolutely liberal overall though, not conservative. Conservatism is a dying breed that needs to be restablished by COMPETENT people that spread a positive message that is appealing, not Glenn Beck or Hannity or Ingram, they're driving people away. You saw this in bigger numbers among Latinos this election.

Not only did American's vote for the liberal candidate by the biggest margin in 20 years, the Dems picked up more seats in the Senate and House...it's was an overall ass kicking. Any denial of this is further proof of flat out ignorance. Every Republican knows it's time to get back to the drawing board. As an indie, I personally want two legit parties, not one way out on the fringe of the right wing. 

If the Republicans learn nothing, they'll run Palin in 2012, and she'll get DESTROYED. The party just met in Miami Florida the other day, to discuss the "furture". The Republcans are splintered right now, betweeen the moderates and the social conservatives. I would love to see a second viable party in this country. Palin ruined that ticket(of course the base loved her, but you can't win elections with a small conservative voting base, you need the moderates/indies to win), everyone on the campaign knew it, that's why leaks were all over the place afterwards.. If Republicans go moderate on the social issues, they'll have a shot in a few election cycles later down the road, but in 2010, look for the Dems to pick up even more seats. It's an embarrasment right now.

this cannot make sense even to you. subprime loans by their very nature have higher interest, because of the higher risk, and therefore actually costs lower class individuals more. yeah, let's help the poor by hosing them to death. great idea.

really? Barney Frank seemed to think there was no problem at all.

it was Bush and McCain that made the proposals. Democrats in the Senate filibustered their efforts.

like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? oh no, that's Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Obama.

Wow, a Bill O'reilly watcher!!! lol...so obvious man. Barney Frank now? Haha. Financial institutions, AIG especailly took advantage of the subprime rates and did hose the public, and under the Right wings control. You really need to read a bit more and do some research on your own. I'm not going to teach your ass for free and times up. Look it up for yourself and READ more. After EVERY tax cut, there was a recession. There are hundreds of articles written on the subject all over the place, and many many economists that back this then don't.

Reagan Tax Cuts for the Rich (remember, never cut them for the average Amercian, only the top percentage of the Country's wealthiest)

Bush Sr. = Continues Reagan Policy, Had to raise taxes from the Reagan Recession

Bush Jr. = Two Recessions, and now possible the next great Depression.

1920's has HUGE tax cuts that led right into the Great Depression

One huge point here, it's only the top earners that when taxes are cut, the Government NEVER reduces the neccessary spending needed, and enters into deficit spending, which in turn, weakens the dollar and causes all kinds of other problems. Tax cuts are good, but not when they are top heavy and greatly favor the top percentages of society.

You probably read this :

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

Which is a right wing think tank, and is full of holes that are easily disproved.

BTW, some quick thoughts. My Family was supposed to pay 70% in taxes, but there were always ways to get around that rate back in the day, for one, most people didn't pay themselves over 3.2 million, and kept most of their money in companies and eventually S corps., and offshore accounts. You probably know nothing about any of this if you're an average American or if you're new money. Most people of wealth make their money through investments, not through Payroll or "normal means", and it's something not many people realize or even seperate in their minds. It  used to be 90% before that believe it or not, for any income over 3.2 million. No one is advocating that, but that was a much different time. I'm opposed to the Death tax completely, at least for the first 50 million to 100 million dollars. The money has already been taxed and doesn't make sense. Insurance pays out the death tax right now, so there are many interests to keep the death tax, it's a huge money maker not only for the Gov, but for private insurance companies as well. There are so many ways to protect your money, that the average millionare pays a far less percentage then the average working American that really has nothing by comparison. No one I know pays more then 20 to 22 percent, and  they all make far more then the median household income, almost all within private investments and through capital gains, which I'm not in favor of raising, but the Country  needs to start paying down that 10 trillion of a credit card bill the Conservatives racked up.

One last point, I've never met or known one owner that created a job from getting a tax cut. This talking point is just not true. Even when Business gets a cut, they don't use that money to pay their people more, it's doesn't "trickle down", it resonates upwards and leaves almost always with bigger bonuses for those at the top. I've seen this first hand for decades.

Good lord I'm gone for three hours and the Laffer Curve came into the conversation. Nothing like an undocumented curve whose equation is always "Just drop taxes on the wealthy *another* 5%, and the economy will *BOOM*".

It's also neat how the Republicans that came into congress in 1994 are responsible for lowering the deficit in 1993 and 1992, the two years that post the exact trend going into the next few years. I'm sure that was what it was.

While we're talking about mythology - did you know that tax and spend democratic congress gave Ronald Reagan almost the exact budget he asked for? It was about 5% over, so you are right, the democrats have sole responibility for about 1/20th of the rise from 2.5% of GDP to 6% of GDP. So lets be clear, the Democratic party is solely responsible for a 0.175% rise in the defit/GDP ratio. The other 3.325% rise in the ratio was explicity requested by Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Do you guys just not check your mythology against history books? I admit it's uncomfortable sometimes, but good heavens, you know the Congressional Budget Office has a website, right?

Jonnan

you realize this is a forum for a game and not politics?

They do?!  Are we like, on the Internet now?!

Actually, I mentioned the NAACP because I sort of agree with your mini-rant here. I'm both vulnerable to supporting a crazy thing like reparations for slavery (barely vulnerable--I've seen no good plan for ensuring payouts would go only and accurately to slave decscendants) and *quite* ready to knock over the unfortunately numerous "leaders" in our black communities who thrive on the ignorance and the (understandable but unhelpful) racism in their churches, wards, districts, etc. Rep. Jefferson needs jail time every bit as much as Duke Cunningham did (but the FBI might have screwed the pooch there with that search of Jefferson's congressional office).

About Mr. Lincoln, this is a very casual format, so I probably didn't think to mention that I *do* appreciate his political skills and very modern mind. When I said that Lincoln's use of epithets didn't matter to me, that was an attempt at showing historical sensitivity. Formally, I don't think it is that smart to call *anyone* in the 19th century "racist" because there was barely any other way of thinking about skin color in North America. But it is just sloppy hero-worship to treat Lincoln like a savior of "the negro race" when we have plenty of historical evidence that, despite his clear belief that they were deserving of equal rights under law, he also wanted them to go back to Africa.

I should also probably admit that part of my dislike of Lincoln's civic beatification is that if we do end up seeing our nascent police state fully mature here in the US, some things he did while prosecuting the War of Northern Aggression will end up making him the de facto grandfather of our freedom-through-enforcement regime. He's the first one who suspended habeas corpus, after all.

I think a modder needs to make a democrat faction and a republican faction for Sins and then we can all duke it out on Ironclad.....say next Saturday night around 7pm?   Winner gets to blame the loser for causing the financial crisis.

We can change the Pirates to the Ralph Nader faction.

Can we blame Nader, then?

Not because it's his fault (it isn't), but just because it's fun.