ShopMobileRadio RSSRivals.com Yahoo! Sports


Off-Topic - Red Head Board
The off-topic board is for politics, tickets and trade, pro sports, jokes, tailgating and more.
Register User Options
Site: Forum:


Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply   Page 1

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Topics
Here’s a question that I would love to see posed to this current class of Republican candidates but thus far I haven’t heard anyone ask it. It goes thusly:

So far all of the Republican candidates including the ones who have dropped out have suggested essentially the same formula for curing our current economic woes and improving the unemployment picture. It pretty much boils down to cutting taxes particularly on the so called job creators (AKA Republican Party funders,) and reducing regulations on businesses. This is what I would label as standard Republican economic policy and is the same economic policies as those employed by George W Bush when the economy all but collapsed. So my question for them and any Conservative posting here would be…”How would your economic policies differ from those that George Bush had in place in 2008?”

Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



Posted on 3/10 1:19 AM | IP: Logged

You need to remember the removal of glass stegall and the quarter million dollar home for every minimum wage worker policy was set up under Clinton.



Posted on 3/10 7:58 AM | IP: Logged

Well the times are different than before there is fear in the business community about the future and they are reluctant to invest in new business ventures. Cutting taxes sounds like an easy fix, but it won't really make much differnece. Individual tax rates are very low at presnt, the idea being to put money in peoples hands to spend. Many companies are making huge profits and yet they do no t want to renvest. My wife works for a fairly large local insurance company that is sitting on billions of dollars and yet they sit on it. Back when times were good, it would be unthinkable for a company to be that profitable and not reinvest that money.

Tax rates are not the issue, only when companies feel like its time to cut loose the cash in new/expanded ventures will the economy take off.

Businesses are unhappy with Obama, they think he is anti-business and big local health care business is still unsure what health care reform is going to mean.

However regardless whenever a business has an opportunity to expand and profit, evenually they will do so.

Posted on 3/12 12:03 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by PORTACARD:
Here’s a question that I would love to see posed to this current class of Republican candidates but thus far I haven’t heard anyone ask it. It goes thusly:

So far all of the Republican candidates including the ones who have dropped out have suggested essentially the same formula for curing our current economic woes and improving the unemployment picture. It pretty much boils down to cutting taxes particularly on the so called job creators (AKA Republican Party funders,) and reducing regulations on businesses. This is what I would label as standard Republican economic policy and is the same economic policies as those employed by George W Bush when the economy all but collapsed. So my question for them and any Conservative posting here would be…”How would your economic policies differ from those that George Bush had in place in 2008?”

Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



Several things come to mind:
1. Don't let the Dems take over the Senate like in 2006. Take it back and keep it in 2012.
2. Make sure there no more Barney Frank-led housing give-aways.
3. Vote BHO out in 2012.
4. Replace Romney with a real conservative in 2016.
5. Undo all the punitive damage BHO has done.
6. Have a real budget as was agreed upon in 1974.
7. Hold govt to its promises.



Posted on 3/26 8:01 PM | IP: Logged

The economy collapsed because of the bursting of a credit bubble. The bubble was created by longstanding policy from both parties, the goal of which was to expand homeownership. If Mr Bush and Mr. Obama (the crisis came to a head right around thet time of the inaugural, so they were working together for some of this) would have held the line on Wall St., there would have been a short -term depression followed by, I would think, a robust recovery, based on history. When Mr. Obama pushed Obamacare, auto bailouts, a stimulus package of greatly increased government spending all at once, while refusing to touch social security or medicare, he created a disasterous fiscal situation which leaves investors reluctant to invest, and thus a non-recovery. His stubborn refusal to reconsider is costing his party, and probably himself dearly in political terms, and the country in economic terms. Mr. Obama has failed to produce a single budget that could attract even one vote of support in congress. His total lack of leadership domestically or internationally disqualifies him for a second term. This was predictable based on his complete lack of qualifications for the job in the first place, and a campaign of symbolism and dumb sloganeering. That about covers it, I think.



Posted on 4/1 5:17 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by beantowncard:
His total lack of leadership domestically or internationally disqualifies him for a second term.


And yet, the Republican party is so fractured and polarized that it can't settle on a candidate who has a chance to win.

There are so many agenda-driven factions within the GOP that they've successfully divided their own party and made the conquering easy for the Democrats.

Posted on 4/25 9:53 PM | IP: Logged

RodCard - so you are saying that robust competition for the nomination is a BAD thing?

Perception is an internal mechanism of the most subjective nature. Might your perception be skewed?

This post was edited on 4/26 12:24 PM by Mayoman


Posted on 4/26 10:33 AM | IP: Logged

These obvious perceptions have been made not by me but by my own conservative friends.

The untrue statements by Santorum (history not taught in California colleges), Rick Perry's forgetfulness (what was that 3rd federal agency I wanted to lay the hatchet to? I forgot but it's really important), Mr. Caine's uncovered discretion, Newt's brilliant idea of hiring student janitors to replace axed union members, and to just pick one for Mitt out of many, "I'm not worried about the very poor." all show evidence of out-of-touch career politicians (Mr. Caine excluded).

Even as a Democrat, I liked Ron Paul but he isn't electable because he wouldn't pander to the party's 400 mine-is-the-most-important agendas.

Mitch made it clear right after Obama's inauguration that his job, from then on, was to make sure the President was not re-elected.

As a tax-paying, voting citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, i feel we have many, many real issues facing us which better demand Sen. McConnell's energies. When do we matter Senator?

Barrack Obama is very beatable in 2012 and the GOP has fumbled finding a candidate with enough overall appeal to win---plain and simple.

The GOP's top candidate once said:

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt Romney (January 2012)

That's great Mitt.

This post was edited on 4/26 8:29 PM by rod_card


Posted on 4/26 8:26 PM | IP: Logged

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt Romney (January 2012)

Probably why Barry will not talk without a tele-prompter (even to a room full of primary school students).

Posted on 4/27 7:13 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by gamedaynut:
"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt Romney (January 2012)

Probably why Barry will not talk without a tele-prompter (even to a room full of primary school students).



Your hate must consume you. Obama's greatest asset is his public speaking skills.

BTW, did anyone catch the leaked Mitt video with him talking about horses? He has a "weird/excited" look come over his face while talking about his "fancy trotter" horse.- lol....I don't know .....shoulder-shrug....To each, their own.

Posted on 4/27 12:20 PM | IP: Logged

"Obama's greatest asset is his public speaking skills."

It is his only asset and he speaks well as he says nothing of value.

Posted on 4/28 6:52 AM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by meltdown213:

Originally posted by gamedaynut:
Obama's greatest asset is his public speaking skills.


Then let him get a job reading books for the blind.

Every TV anchor in America has public speaking skills. That is not a lot to hang your hat on.

And it been proven, that without a Teleprompter, he's toast. Funny how Dems say stupid stuff constantly, but get a pass.

But Romney is out of touch, and Dan Quayle was an "idiot". rolleyes
5/9 6:42 AM | IP: Logged

Originally posted by Rollem Cards:

Originally posted by meltdown213:

Originally posted by gamedaynut:
Obama's greatest asset is his public speaking skills.


Then let him get a job reading books for the blind.

Every TV anchor in America has public speaking skills. That is not a lot to hang your hat on.

And it been proven, that without a Teleprompter, he's toast. Funny how Dems say stupid stuff constantly, but get a pass.

But Romney is out of touch, and Dan Quayle was an "idiot". rolleyes



What? Public speaking is nothing to hang a hat on. LOL. OK.
5/9 5:42 PM | IP: Logged
What do you mean, melty? ^^^^^
5/9 7:02 PM | IP: Logged

Originally posted by 71card:
What do you mean, melty? ^^^^^


You don't know much about those CEOs you love, cardy. Maybe less radical websites and more research for you pops. That way you're at least somewhat educated about crap you speak.
5/9 7:16 PM | IP: Logged
I meant, what do you mean by the statement: "What? Public speaking is nothing to hang a hat on." It sounds like you are implying that it is a sufficient skill package for the POTUS, but that doesn't make much sense. That is why I was asking for clarification.
5/9 8:22 PM | IP: Logged
Just because you passed public speaking 101 doesn't mean you're worth a crap at it. LOL. I'd hire a good public speaker for six figures w/o thinking about it. The problem is, you can't find one willing to work for others or beat the corporate wages. Factor in the criticism about one's ability who made it to POTUS and ....LOL again.

This post was edited on 5/9 10:36 PM by meltdown213

5/9 9:51 PM | IP: Logged

Originally posted by meltdown213:
Just because you passed public speaking 101 doesn't mean you're worth a crap at it. LOL. I'd hire a good public speaker for six figures w/o thinking about it. The problem is, you can't find one willing to work for others or beat the corporate wages. Factor in the criticism about one's ability who made it to POTUS and ....LOL again.

This post was edited on 5/9 10:36 PM by meltdown213



Well, you did hire one essentially.

How's it working out?

He who laughs last.....although it's not funny at all.

A smooth talker, who comes from out of the blue, who promised the moon, but does nothing but line their own pockets, is/was called a carpetbagger. Or con man.

Our problem today is...Washington is FULL of smooth talkers. And look where we are.

You can have your smooth talker. I'll take an Andy Griffith/Will Rogers type any day.
5/10 8:15 AM | IP: Logged

Originally posted by Rollem Cards:

Well, you did hire one essentially.

How's it working out?

He who laughs last.....although it's not funny at all.

A smooth talker, who comes from out of the blue, who promised the moon, but does nothing but line their own pockets, is/was called a carpetbagger. Or con man.

Our problem today is...Washington is FULL of smooth talkers. And look where we are.

You can have your smooth talker. I'll take an Andy Griffith/Will Rogers type any day.



Nothing has changed since Bush crushed the country with gas prices. Now that the people have accepted the new prices and been conditioned...don't ever expect those prices to fall again. On the flip side of life, things have never been better for the employees and shareholders of oil corporations. Whoever we put in office doesn't seem to matter much to them.

That was funny, but I'm not laughing.

They're all smooth talkers. The real problem is the lack of "checks" in the check and balance system. Obama wants to bring some of that back, but the big money wants no part of it. A $130,000/yr judge isn't likely to stand in the way of a billion dollar corporation.

I bet the amount of money you spend on cell phones has either went up or remained constant. Yet, the cost of everything associated with wireless technology has reduced drastically by comparison. And America's wireless system has been considered old and out dated for at least 15 years. Why? No competition. The wireless corporations just tried to squeeze everyone more by eliminating T-Mobile. And Obama didn't let them. Our countries wireless technology/system is key for us to compete in the future.

This post was edited on 5/16 2:59 PM by meltdown213

5/16 2:52 PM | IP: Logged
Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Topics

Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply Page 1

LATEST NEWS




Rivals.com is your source for: College Football | Football Recruiting | College Basketball | Basketball Recruiting | College Baseball | High School | College Merchandise
Site-specific editorial/photos © CardinalSports.com. All rights reserved. This website is an officially and independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
About | Advertise with Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | About our Ads | Terms of Service | Copyright/IP policy | Yahoo! Sports - NBC Sports Network

Statistical information ©2007 STATS LLC All Rights Reserved.