In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If it's so easily solved why hasn't zero proposed a solution?
So basically anybody with a freaking brain would just VERY SLOWLY raise the FICA Cap and the Even more slowly the SS age... But since Dems want to do one and the Republicans the other...
Marriage is like flying with kids, if the flight had 500 connections, never ended, Ted Striker were your pilot and you ate the fish.
So, pendulums swing back and forth in a predictable manner, right? You seem to indicate an 8 year cycle that will result in a GOP president in 2016. We had Clinton in 1992/1996, Bush in 2000/2004, Obama in 2008/2012, so your pendulum theory predicts a GOP win in 2016. Makes sense, except that there is a lot more to national politics than presidential elections, and there have been huge shifts in the Republican/Democrat balance during midterm races that have impacted recent presidential races.
While Bush won the 2000 election narrowly,the Democrats picked up two seats in the house, and 4 seats in the Senate.
2000 = pendulum not really swinging at all, the election was basically a split.
In the midterm elections in 2002, the republicans did very well. +8 in the house and +2 in the Senate.
2002 = pendulum swinging right
2004 elections - Bush wins re-election, republicans go +3 in the house and +4 in the Senate.
2004 = pendulum swinging right
2006 elections - Democrats get 31 seats in the house and 5 seats in the senate. A victory for Dems.
2006 = pendulum starts to swing back left
2008 elections - Democrats roll. Obama wins the white house, Dems gain 21 house seats and 8 senate seats.
2008 = pendulum swinging way to the left
2010 elections - Republicans win big. 63 house seats and 6 senate seats.
2010 = pendulum starts swings way to the right? After just four years? So... is it getting faster?
2012 elections - Obama wins relection, Democrats pick up seats in the house and senate.
2012 = pendulum swinging to the left. After just two years? Is the pendulum swinging in a 2 year cycle now? OK...
2014 = republican win
2016 = democrat win
So, we had a split in 2000
Republicans won in 2002 and 2004.
Democrats won in 2006, 2008
Republicans won in 2010.
Democrats won in 2012.
None of that seems to indicate a pattern that would be synonymous with a pendulum swinging predictably back and forth, brah.
Seems like the real melt down is on this board.
He's posting on a board about a school that is publicly funded and was the pioneer land grant institution. He reeps the benefits of "socialism" just fine. He just is a parrot for talking points...like prisoners getting TVs and Obama phones and other ridiculous garbage that Sean Hannity puts into the echo chamber, and he proudly repeats as if it's a legit point of view.
Example: Paul Ryan can talk about the debt all he wants. He can act like a huge debt hawk and people actually believe it. But anyone with a brain can look at his support of the two wars (unfunded) and Medicare Part D (unfunded) under George W. Bush and see that his debt conversion is recent and a conversion of convenience. Not of ideology. He loved spending on the credit card when his guy had it.
Just because a problem can be easily solved doesn't mean there will ever be the votes in Congress for the easy solution.
It has always been clear to anyone who looks at actual historical behavior that Republicans favor fiscal restraint only when a Democrat is in the White House. Republican administrations have invariably increased both spending and deficits. The notion that they are the "fiscally responsible" party is laughable.There is virtually no evidence supporting that claim and much that contradicts it.
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
Jesus is the one who puts the Bible in your hotel drawers, right? Or is that Santa Claus?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by 0915426A 20 months ago
@realDonaldTrump: Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.
Uhh..I do pay for cops and streets..I get that. I also "get" that we have a socialistic society and I deal with it. I also understand and see every day how our lovely government wants their fingers in every single bit of my business. When I see a business crippled by the negotiations it takes just to keep employees from cheating for Family Leave benefits (do you know how many people now have "mental health issues" suddenly and their employers pay for their time off whenever they need it?), fake injuries, fake sexual harrassment issues and subsequent lawsuits..sorry, it pisses me off. These people want their handouts and Obama is ready and eager to back them up. It slows down research and development, capital spending and expansion (which would in turn lead to more jobs and growth), etc. in a BIG way.
And as for this criticism I get for not being appreciative of my education by a Public institution? That's crap. I appreciate the fact that MSU drives innovation and job building. That's what it's all about. The institution and my background has nothing to do with the fact that our government seems to slow down growth and prosperity of small and big business for the quick fix and for the gain of future voters. If they continue down this path, more and more business owners will be forced to just be content to stand pat and keep "safe".
I'll see your fuck-off and say have a great day, Sir ;)
There is romance in all of us
Ronald Reagan was really the last one to pull it off..I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but he had this country pretty excited for the future and we had a surplus.
I'm not naive enough to say it wasn't at the expense of SOME things..but he got 'er done with a huge surplus.
A lot of political success by a President is about what he does to rally people. Reagan was great at that.
Your education at a public institution disqualifies your ideological purity on socialism. Our society funded your education, in part, because we collectively value an educated populace. So you like socialism when it is to your advantage, but you don't like it for FMLA (not an Obama initiative). BTW, you know you don't have to pay people who are doing FMLA right?
I'm glad that you took full advantage of our system and got your "Socialist" education. It probably makes you a better business owner. Just don't burn the bridge behind you.
Reagan had a surplus? Might wanna look at the math again. If you dislike debt, then you should really hate Reagan. He never even submitted a balanced budget.
You might understand why I'm somewhat skeptical of Obama. First, his experience in Government consisted of being a community advisor (whatever the fuck that means) in this City you describe, and then 2/3 or more of his cabinet appointees (or at least attempted) were plucked straight out of this machine.
actually he was a community organizer for one year BEFORE going to law school. Then he was a lawyer and law professor before going to the State Senate and then US Senate.
Come on, at least try to be close to correct.
"If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais
Touche' . It was his investment in the future that got it done very soon later, though. In those days the investment was nothing near the trillions we have now, but..
And yes, I know it is a viscious cycle of argument here, this "who helped whom", but I stand by my thought that Reagan was a great leader and got things going in this country.
You can wave the Reagan flag all you want but other than being charismatic in reality he was not a great President. The debt exploded under his watch as he tried to spend the USSR out of business with "Star Wars" and don't forget Iran Contra.
Where did I ever say that I was looking for pure unadulterated lack of social programs in this country?
I'm looking for social programs that aren't wasteful and restrictive. For people that need it and deserve it..
People who like Reagan always fall back to this, "I just like him"/"great leader" thing. Which is fine. The GOP has created a helluva myth around Reagan. But facts are facts....he was as big a spender as the rest of them. He never submitted a balanced budget. And he had higher tax rates than we currently have in this country. So he was more of a wealth redistributor than Obama!
But he gave nice speeches.
Right....or "Socialism" as you call it.
As WS has already answered, Reagan never had a surplus. In fact, he actually quintupled the deficit in his very first year from what it was in Carter's last year. Those were the days of the Laffer curve, in which it was posited that a country could increase its tax revenue intake by drastically reducing tax rates. The spur to the economy was supposed to more than make up for the drop caused by lower rates. It was a nice theory, but when they tried it, the empirical evidence definitively and unmistakably showed that it was absurdly wrong. The budget deficit skyrocketed.
Remember that one of Dick Cheney's more revealing quotes was, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." That's largely why Bush/Cheney refused to pay for anything and turned a surplus into a staggering deficit.
This post was edited by Moose Orgsky 20 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports