home

Restating the Obvious

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:16:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bruce Bartlett:

Republicans are adamant that taxes on the ultra-wealthy must not rise to the level they were at during the Clinton administration, as President Obama favors, lest economic devastation result. But they have a problem – the 1990s were the most prosperous era in recent history. This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade.

Yes, they would. But has that ever stopped a Republican? FTR: "Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul."

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Trump Hears Call To Speak At GOP Convention >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Restating the Obvious | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Okay, I just read Bartlett's column... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by unitron on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    ...why hasn't the current Republican party tarred and feathered him and run him out on rail?

    Isn't he far too close to sanity for their liking?

    Rush should be railing. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    Meanwhile, the Romneys, like many other home owners in San Diego County, applied for, and received a lower valuation on their home in La Jolla, thus paying lower property taxes.  I didn't realized they pd. all cash [12 mil.] for this home.  Amazing.  tax relief

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    ...I do it, or rather I pay for a service, to do it every year.  I think this is fairly normal, certainly here in Texas where property tax rates are +3%.

    To me this is leaps and bounds away from moving cash outside the country to avoid paying taxes.

    It's tax on the value of property and that value tanked, but the counties aren't going revalue your property, so the owner is forced to, or pay taxes for more property then they actually own.

    Parent

    He was sane? Uh . . . his best-seller (none / 0) (#31)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    about Jeebus, M.B.A., "the founder of modern business," gave me the heebie-jeebies reading it even decades later:  The Man Nobody Knows.

    Having read that, I can't read the column here.  It feels like reading a column by the anti-Christ.


    Parent

    Different guy (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:34:37 AM EST
    Your book is Bruce Barton. BTD's talking about Bruce Bartlett.

    Parent
    They do worse than that (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:33:17 AM EST
    They totally ignore him.

    Parent
    Oh, why not? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    Bruce Bartlett: "This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade."

    After all, isn't that what Republicans have already been doing with the history of most of the 20th century?

    They're re-written the history of the Great Depression for themselves, to both mask their own culpability in the Crash of '29 and offer the hapless Herbert Hoover credit for those pregressive policies actually implemented by President Franklin Roosevelt.

    They re-tell the story of the Second World War to obfuscate their party's own staunch role as isolationists during the time that German armires were overrunning most of Europe from Bordeaux to Moscow, in which they repeatedly opposed attempts by President Roosevelt to simultaneously aid Great Britain and re-arm a then-weak U.S. military to confront the looming Axis threat.

    Then they try to blame Democrats for the Soviet domination of eastern Europe at its end, notwithstanding the fact that the Soviet Union had actually paid a horrific price of nearly about 25 million dead for its conquest of the region from the Nazis, and that we were really in no position -- military of otherwise -- to oppose their occupation at the time, anyway.

    They spin a fanciful tale of the early days of the Cold War, in repeated attempts to posthumously elevate Sen. Joe McCarthy from the status of a vicious alcoholic and political pariah to anti-Communist crusader extraordinaire in the 1950s.

    They've also brazenly attempted to take credit for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and have thrown a thick layer of gauze over the Watergate scandal to avoid any honest discussion about the political legacy of Richard Nixon, particularly in their own party.

    We're never going to stop them from doing what they're going to do. What we can do is point out how difficult it is find instances where Republicans have been on the right side of almost any major issue since the conclusion of the U.S. Civil War in 1865. For its part, while American history has marched on, it has often done so despite the GOP's best efforts.

    Aloha.

    It's why conservatives fight so hard to get (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    certain textbooks into the public schools - I mean, what better way to make sure kids learn the "right" version of history than to make sure the textbooks comport with the conservatives' fractured version?

    Probably explains a lot of the impetus behind home-schooling, too.

    Parent

    Thankfully, our children and grandchildren ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    ... can now learn that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were both American presidents -- at the exact same time.

    After all, as no less than former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft once told Southern Partisan magazine:

    "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern Patriots like Lee, Jackson, and Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." (Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1998, "Senator Ashcroft: Missouri's Champion of States' Rights and Traditional Southern Values," pp. 26-29)


    Parent
    Donald! Oh Donald! (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    So since the Soviets paid a huge price in defeating Germany that's a reason for them to seize Eastern Europe and start the Cold War??

    The things I learn.

    As for Joe Mc, the truth is his PR was terrible  but the facts are that there were Soviet Spies and fellow travelers in the government. And when the exposure started they had protectors in both the DC Repubs and Demos. Joe Mc and Nixon paid a price for that.

    Doubt me? Read "
    Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (Yale Nota Bene) by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr" which is the story of how our NSA cracked the Soviet's code and what they found. It is a dense hard to read non-political book with tons of references published by that Far Right publisher, Yale Press.

    Parent

    LOL........................... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    !

    You do realize your use of the phrase "fellow travelers" gives you away... as a crackpot!

    Parent

    Do you realize that your (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    rejection of that word reflects very poorly on your knowledge base??

    Parent
    Let's see... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    You used a phrase commonly used by histrionic paranoids, and defended both McCarthy and Nixon -- Nixon, that other famous paranoid.

    You're batting .1000 today, Jimbo. Please do keep it up. The comic relief is perfect for a Monday!

    Parent

    shoephone, I have this habit (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    of reading and trying to use information that is accurate. I don't care where it comes from. If it is correct, it is correct even if it comes from a raving nut. Conversely, if it is wrong it doesn't matter who said it. It is wrong.

    I find the "attack the source" prevalent in the Far Left and the Far Right. Both do themselves a great disservice.

    You fall into the Far Left category. Instead of trying to prove that "fellow travelers" did not exist you attack first the word and then two public people, out of hundreds, that spoke and used the word.

    Not very effective.

    Parent

    "Information that is accurate"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    Since when?

    When you ignore multitudes of peer-reviewed research and studies by actual experts/scientists in favor of op-eds and political sources like climatedepot, you're not looking for "accurate information" ... you're looking to support your own agenda.  

    The "if it is correct" part is funny, but that's why it's so important to use credible sources.

    Parent

    Your first sentence is hilarious (none / 0) (#47)
    by observed on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    It's too bad I'm hurting from an injury right now, because that gut buster made me cry.

    Parent
    Maybe it wasn't just his PR (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by observed on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    that was terrible.
    How many Communists did he expose, compared to lives of innocent people ruined?
    Or doesn't that matter to you?
    And what about his methods... no problem there either?


    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    for backing up Donald on his statement about conservatives trying to rewrite history. The fact of the matter is they've been on the wrong side of most everything since Abraham Lincoln.

    Parent
    I suggest that you read and ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    ... familiarize yourself with "A Declaration of Conscience" a June 1, 1950 floor speech delivered by Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), in which she formally called out the disreputable and despicable tactics of her fellow Republican, Joe McCarthy:

    "Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.

    "Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

    "I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory.

    "I don't want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.

    "As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

    [...]

    "As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism.  I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

    "I don't like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate."

    There's good and ample reason why Sen. Chase Smith was ultimately proved right in her damning contention about her Republican colleague, and why Sen. Joe McCarthy is held in near-universal disrepute and contempt today by an overwhelming majority of responsible and thinking Americans. You simply make yourself look foolish by insisting otherwise, and dismissing McCarthy's problems as nothing more than a case of bad public relations.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ah yes, Joe Mc (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    was not an nice guy and his motives were probably bad and he certainly didn't fit in the nice nice world of Margaret Chase.

    Since I noted that in my previous comment I don't know why you want to guild the lily.

    But I don't think I make myself look foolish when I note that, despite all his bad points, he was right.

    And at that time everyone else was wrong.

    Parent

    He was "right" about.. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    there being two hundred communists in the State Department?

    He was right in doing nothing but, irresponsibly, criminally, fueling an atmosphere in this country with over-suspician, hysteria and paranoia?

    Saying "McCarthy was right" is like saying a diamond cutter who used a stick of dynamite was right..

    Of course, possibly the worst thing McCarthy did was, following Father Coughlin, setting the stage for the whole gang of lurid, wild-swinging, heavy-handed right wing trogladytes of talk radio and Fox News..  

     

    Parent

    Remember, it dwindled from 205 to 57 (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    and yet we still never saw the "list." He waved some paper around at Senate hearings, "I have in my hand a list of 57 known communists...!!!" blah blah blah. But he never actually showed us the "list." Instead he just viciously hounded people into resigning.

    But I think your comment

    Saying "McCarthy was right" is like saying a diamond cutter who used a stick of dynamite was right..

    pretty much nails it.

    Parent

    Doesn't the First Amendment (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    give us the right to be communist, vegetarian or any other philosophy?

    Communists are no crazier than the TEA Party.  I remember in the '50s the paralyzing fear instilled in the country about the horrifying specter of "communism," by J. Edgar Hoover in order to increase his personal power, but no one ever told me what they did that was so bad.  (The parallel with witchcraft is unmistakeable.)

    Anybody want to give it a shot for me?

    Parent

    Yes, actually (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:45:37 AM EST
    If you knew squat about Russian history, you'd know how regularly they got beaten up by their neighbors for a thousand years or more.  Sweden, for God's sake, back in whatever century that was.

    Of course they wanted to expand communism, but far more important to them was protection.  And if I were you, I wouldn't scoff about how 25 million dead can affect a country's behavior,given what the U.S. has gotten itself into as a result of 3,000 dead on 9/11.

    The Soviet Union's treatment of the countries it took over post WWII was despicable-- Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, half of Germany, etc., and hardly designed to make converts to communism.

    As Ehud Barak so memorably once said about Iran and which I love to quote, they were mushuggah, but not irrational.

    And not to mention if you look at Russia now, it's the embodiment of what the bolsheviks warned would happen if communism was defeated and rampant capitalism was allowed to flourish.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Then what you are saying (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    is that it is okay for someone to cut my throat if I understand his motive.

    Wow.

    Parent

    Maybe part of what she's (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    saying is that you don't have to turn into a self-lobotomizing American right winger to avoid having your "throat cut"..

    That there's alot of middle ground between Lenin and the Koch Brothers and Ayn Rand.

    Parent

    Wow indeed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    You make up your own words to put in other people's mouths with fewer compunctions than almost anybody else I know.

    Parent
    The problem with (2.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    the argument re the 90's is that this in't the 90's.

    There is no $1.00 gas. There is no Internet bubble. There is no housing bubble.

    And the secondary issue is that everyone who actually looks at history knows that this is just the nose under the tent to increase taxes on the middle class.

    Fool me once, etc.

    Gosh, where've I heard that before? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    Oh, yeah -- from this guy.

    Parent
    W alert! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:28:31 PM EST


    Parent
    It's the laugh track that ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    ... makes the difference.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    The housing bubble was after 2002. There was no housing bubble in the 90's.

    And even Republicans are wistful for the 90's now with 44% of them even approving of ole Bubba according to Gallup. Too bad they wasted so much time back then with nonsense.

    Parent

    Actually the housing bubble started under (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    Carter but it was this from Clinton that really goosed it.

    By STEVEN A. HOLMES (New York Times)

    Published: September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    snip

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

    Link

    That Wallison sure had it pegged.


    Parent

    Oh, boy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    Here we go again. It's all Bill Clinton's fault and even though the collapse happened with Bush all he would do is bail out the banks.

    Parent
    If you believe (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    that then you have to really hate W. for sitting on his butt and doing nothing for 8 years except bailing out the banks. But of course, you're going to excuse Bush for doing nothing. The GOP had all three branches of government for six years during this so called "problem" and they did nothing. What does that say about them then?

    Parent
    Wallison again?!? Hahahahahahah ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    Wallison's claims are a joke.  Actually, "the big lie" is more accurate.  Even his fellow Republicans didn't agree with him.

    Parent
    Total nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:50:25 AM EST
    Housing prices were rising slowly, then dropped back, then recovered, and took off like a rocket in the last few years.

    Trust me, my late mother monitored the whole thing incredibly closely since her house was the one thing she thought she could pass down to her kids when she died that might have some value.  She died in late 2005 and we sold her house for a ridiculously higher price than she could ever have imagined even a few years before, right at the top of the bubble.  Lucky us.


    Parent

    Yes. Lucky us. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    You and me. We sold in 2004 in Denver and made more money than I ever thought possible.

    Unlucky them.... the people who paid the inflated prices.

    BTW - I am unaware of any dropping of housing prices during the 90's on a national basis. Local areas may always not reflect the national average.

    Parent

    Gasoline... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    ...damn you must use like a million gallons a year the way pretty much every economic comment you type is wrapped around the price the gas.

    Still trying to wrap my head around how $1/gal gas prices in the 90's are the reason millionaires can't pay more taxes.  But you go Jim, they need more people fighting their good fight.

    Parent

    That's it! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 04:33:19 PM EST
    You've just been added to Jim's "don't know how to debate" list.

    Parent
    You disappoint me, shooter (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    My complains re Jondee are well documented. I'll just put your snark down to it being a bad Monday for you.

    Parent
    Jimmy are you trolling again? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    what did Daddy tell you about that?

    Parent
    Scott, try looking at the total picture (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    rather than trying to cherry pick one.

    It was a decade of the perfect clear skies and sparkling streams. Cheap energy, a technology bubble, a housing bubble. Unicorns were pulling Santa's sleigh and the tooth fairy was passing out millions. Any 21 year old worth his salt had a business plan on the back of an envelope and would soon be a multi-millionaire.

    Then reality hit. W cut taxes and the Left has been complaining ever since.

    Parent

    I love it! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    Pretty soon all those straw men you're racking up are gonna start to stink like a pile of rotting, dead corpses.

    Oops, I think I smell them now...

    Parent

    shoephone (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    Are you incapable of refuting my point??

    It certainly seems that you are and that you comment to snark and make personal attacks.

    Parent

    W cutting taxes was part of (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:51:02 PM EST
    the "reality" that hit, too.

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    Bush cut taxes AND started an unfounded war.

    What followed was inevitable.

    Parent

    Unfounded?? (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    9/11 didn't happen?? Saddam wasn't attacking our aircraft in the no fly zone... All the world's intelligence agencies didn't think he had WMD's...Saddam wasn't giving $25K rewards to the parents of PLO terrorist suicide bombers....al Qaeda members weren't in Iraq for medical treatment...

    Unfounded?????

    lol

    Parent

    Yep - unfounded (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:31:22 AM EST
    But if all you have is straw, might as well throw it and see what sticks, huh Jim?

    As much as Bush and the wingers tried to connect 9-11 to Iraq, they never could.  This issue was examined numerous times by US intelligence agencies, the Brits, the Isaraelis and numerous intelligence committees, and much as Bush/Cheyney/you tried to convince everyone otherwise, there was never any evidence found to support their (and your) claim:


    Several official investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies, and independent investigative bodies have looked into various aspects of the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Every single investigation has resulted in the conclusion that the data examined did not provide compelling evidence of a cooperative relationship between the two entities.


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    and don't you remember how we had a surplus that Bush promptly squandered and that conservative think tanks like the Heritage Association were saying that the Bush tax cuts were going to solve the deficit and they would pay for everything. What a fantasy world conservatives live in. You never have to take responsibility and then you can just make up numbers and live in lala land.

    Parent
    Actually the market collapsed starting (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    in March of 2000 and the NASDAQ lost 50% by the time Bush was sworn in. People were comparing it to 1929.

    So 9/11 merely magnified what was already happening.

    So the surplus was gone no matter what.

    Parent

    NASDAQ (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    had collapsed but those were high risk stocks in the first place. So, the only people that thought it was like 1929 were idiots. I would say the fall of 2008 when everything was collapsing was more akin to 1929 than 2000.

    Parent
    OMG... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    ...Jim on the Bill Clinton era:
    It was a decade of the perfect clear skies and sparkling streams. Cheap energy, a technology bubble, a housing bubble. Unicorns were pulling Santa's sleigh and the tooth fairy was passing out millions. Any 21 year old worth his salt had a business plan on the back of an envelope and would soon be a multi-millionaire.

    And why did it end:

    Then reality hit. W cut taxes and the Left has been complaining ever since.

    I don't believe there is a better argument for not voting for Romney, well done sir.  Good to see you finally come to your sense.

    And I totally agree, democrats bring in prosperity, so prosperous, "Any 21 year old worth his salt had a business plan on the back of an envelope and would soon be a multi-millionaire."

    And republicans bring in their reality, recession, and the left 'complains' when prosperity is ripped to shreds by fools.

    Parent

    Restating the Obvious | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment