IMHO, the growing frustration in America is about MORE than.....

Of course you completely twisted what he said and obfuscated his point.

Oh...yeah...and you completely ignored my various posts. Not so good at refuting logic and reason I guess.

 

Since you're a Conservative, I'm guessing you're supposed to defend "his side". Play along, man!

As an aside, it's all about the repo market.

Securitization craze hit commercial real estate, student and auto loans along with residential real estate. I'll admit GSE's magnified the housing boom, but those same GSE's existed for 30+ years without a hitch.

Gotta follow the money. It's how No Income No Job, negative amortization mortgages, and Liars loans came into play. The government didn't force that on anybody.

 

Yeah, he has done the same thing to me. If it can't be refuted by a Faux sound bite or YouTube clip, then his ability to reason goes downhill fast.

 

Hey, I googled it and found a picture of smotherfish...

 

Sure Barney Franks was involved but that still ignores the fact that the bill was championed by Republicans, conservative ones at that, and that the final act is called The Gramm, Leach, Biley Act Not the Frank, Pelosi (or anyother liberal Democrat.)

Further I find this argument incompatible with your overall criticism regarding progressives. You have been arguing that you fear the progressives as leading the US down the road to socialism and site increased regulation they are pushing as the path towards Socialism. Well the repeal of Glass Steagell that led to the mortgage crisis wasn't a matter of increased regulation but deregulation. It is essentially the policy that you are advocating that led to this crisis.

Fine but you cannot blame it on progressives unless you consider Romney and the Heritage foundation to be progressives.

 

So you cite the election of Scott Brown as a sign that America is now rejecting the Progressive Agenda (something that has yet to be shown as other than a term of convenience for criticism) but now you come back and say that the election of Scott Brown was really selfish progressives.

I really hope that the winky face at the bottom does mean that you are joking.

 

Nevermind that Scott Brown was instrumental in getting Romney-care in place. Oh well, the facts just keep piling on, don't they?

This is why I called "troll" early -- unless we get any evidence to the contrary, it's just a more-polite version of the standard dude: playing parrot for GOP talking points; only addressing the most flimsy of arguments put against him; posting lots of youtube clips as evidence; and changing the topic whenever his position gets undercut by other posters and facts. bleh.

I still wonder if they get paid for this. I'd hope so, or it's really depressing. I still think/hope basso gets paid per thread created. Otherwise, it's kind of mind-boggling.

 

I guess Refman has no interest in defending his side.

I'm not a conservative or liberal but personally I find it troubling that many conservatives are having trouble really articulating a rational. Things like cherry picking or even obfuscating history, repeating talking points to the point of spamming, painting unrealistic absolutes, and falling back on nebulous statements about patriotism don't help their arguments.

I myself am uneasy with a lot of things that the current Admin., and the previous Admin did, that have lead to greater deficit spending and increased government regulation and intervention. I think that we need a balance but at the moment am not seeing conservatives really presenting rational arguments for thier side. Too often they seem to be about a general unfocussed anger as exemplified by the TEA Party.

 

All I want to know is why do I have to have a building permit to put shingles on my home, where nobody comes to inspect anything, but I have to pay the city.
Permits for garage sales.
Permits for a metal building addition, but if I'm not in a flood plain, no inspector is required, just mail in the money and have a nice day.

 

I think Refman is trying to help brothaman whether the fish knows it or not.

The problem I see is that the Conservatives who are politically and economically proficient still cling on to a quasi-Libertarian fantasy that seemed to work 20 years ago. Dubya skull****ed and shattered that belief, so now they have to whisk themselves to an imaginary world of what-ifs and to a land where "real Conservatives" lead and govern.

I don't like the idea of a government with a blank check. With the realities at hand, I'm willing to swallow another "entitlement", especially when the current system guaranteed hidden entitlements (ER care) and hidden rationing (deny healthcare to the broke, unlucky, and indebted). The current Rovian climate isn't helping. Conservative leaders are painting themselves in a corner where they can't compromise without looking like hypocritical apostates. One can say Liberals are egging them on, but they got spanked in '02 and '04 for taking the high road. Politicians do things that will reward them the most votes.

In response to Conservative and Teabag paranoia about tax increases destroying the economy, Bruce Bartlett, Mr. Supply Side Economics, wrote:

'When one hears these claims, however, it is worth remembering that they said the same things in years past and none of their dire predictions came to pass."​

Then he proceeds to demolish their claims by analyzing the Reagan and Clinton tax increases.

Another editorial of his:
[rquoter]In short, no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.

Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.[/rquoter]

David Stockman, Mr. Starve the Beast, on raising taxes and Starving the Beast:
[rquoter]
I think the lesson of the last 25 years is that [starving the beast] doesn't work. You can keep cutting taxes until you reach the point where this year -- or the year just ended, we spent $3.6 trillion, and we only collected $2.2 trillion.

So, we are now so far out of kilter that it's irrelevant. Taxes are going to have to be raised. And the beast needs to be trimmed back. But it can't be starved enough to even begin to cope with our fiscal problem. And this is where I think all the politicians are faking in both parties, but the Republicans especially.

The Republicans think their mission in life is to cut taxes. Sorry, game -- game over. We're now in the tax-raising business. And we're going to be in the tax-raising business for the next decade.[/rquoter]

This is the part with a Brotherfish or a Conservative ideologue can't skim over, Bartlett and Stockman both worked for Reagan to craft his economic policy.



So yeah, I wish there were more Refmans who would bring out their mindset and find a realistic and sane solution with the matters at hand. That would be a helluva opposition party.

 

Bingo. Speaking in absolutes and painting those who disagree with you as bad or evil or ill-intentioned does nothing other than to weaken our country.

Coming up with reasonable alternatives and debating in earnest with respect is the only way to further your viewpoint.

Thanks dude. I am hopeful that the vitriol from the right will die down and conservatives can become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

 

Oh good - some fake backstory to add to this persona that you are building.

What state does our evangelist Christian subcontinent friend call home?

Please let us know in due time - let's keep the schtick going brah. And by that I mean BRO, not BRAH-MIN. HAR HAR HAR.

 

Damn straight.

 

I have been trying diligently to be the "other" type of conservative in this thread. I just can't seem to get the guy to talk to me anymore.

 

To me, Ref, you and weslinder (and sometimes maybe FDKhan, sp?, and Hayesstreet, sp?, if we can call him that) are conservatives. The posters we're talking about, well... I don't like the term "wingers," and I don't want to use a pejorative. I guess I'll just call them unreasonable.

PS -- I really liked treeman back in the day. I know he drove some people crazy, but I think he really transcended talking points and was pretty thoughtful. I guess he's gone for good, BBS wise, but I hope not in real life. Hypothetically, he could have been a casualty, right?

 

IIRC his Army job involved tending chemical weapons at Pine Bluff Arsenal. I don't know that he would have gone anywhere that he could have been a casualty unless he changed his MOS.

 

Thanks, Otto. As usual, your memory is much better than mine.

 

I thought he did a tour in Iraq. Could be wrong, though. I wish he'd return, if he's OK.

 

Facts masquerading as liberal condescension, you mean? WE DON'T NEED THEM!

P.S. - You real Americans (the rural conservative ones, I mean) need this wallpaper! Show your patriotism!