ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784570 wrote:No he's a neolib. Similar to a neocon, just gives money to different people than the neocons.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784570 wrote:No he's a neolib. Similar to a neocon, just gives money to different people than the neocons.

ptown_trojans_1;1784571 wrote:Nerd alert.
I wouldn't classify Obama as a neolib. If he was, he would have gone into Syria already, and probably into Yemen or Nigeria.
I would classify him as a cautious realist, just barely a neorealist. Where he only uses broad American power in extreme circumstances, but is not willing to send US forces to protect civilians. He still uses international institutions, but in terms of power and using power, is the most realist and cautious President we have had since Ike.

sleeper;1784573 wrote:So why bring up neocons and not neolibs?

I'll answer for you: You're biased and can't think objectively.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784575 wrote:You can use the two interchangeably. One isn't better than the other.

sleeper;1784577 wrote:You mean like socialist and Democratic socialist?

sleeper;1784548 wrote:I agree the Republican party needs to adapt, especially on social issues. However, I don't think adopting European style socialism is a useful solution to the problem and will almost certainly make things worse overall for everyone.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784578 wrote:Sometimes?
Are you also in the camp that can't distinguish a democratic socialism and an authoritarian socialism?
if so, then yes. Socialism is socialism is socialism.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784578 wrote:Sometimes?
Are you also in the camp that can't distinguish a democratic socialism and an authoritarian socialism?
if so, then yes. Socialism is socialism is socialism.

queencitybuckeye;1784580 wrote:Is there really a difference between the masses choosing to steal more of our money though threat of loss of freedom or one tyrant doing so?

sleeper;1784581 wrote:My comment was more tongue in cheek but I do find it hilarious Bernie spent a lot of time trying to convince people that he's a "Democratic socialist" and not a socialist.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784582 wrote:Back in Eisenhowers day, excess wealth was considered a benefit for everyone because it was thanks to the economy and not you. Thus, it was taxed accordingly. That's why he could pass the tax rates he did in the top earners (that and a ton of loopholes). But genuinely people felt this way. I'm glad you weren't alive then for your family's sake so they wouldn't have to hear you cry everyday.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784582 wrote:Back in Eisenhowers day, excess wealth was considered a benefit for everyone because it was thanks to the economy and not you. Thus, it was taxed accordingly. That's why he could pass the tax rates he did in the top earners (that and a ton of loopholes). But genuinely people felt this way. I'm glad you weren't alive then for your family's sake so they wouldn't have to hear you cry everyday.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784583 wrote:I must have missed the part where he suggested taking control of production back to the government. You were at that rally?

queencitybuckeye;1784587 wrote:Not remotely accurate. Who fed you this bullshit?

As usual, you attempt to sidestep the real issue which is, does a "majority rules" political system somehow have more moral (not legal) authority to take more than the absolute minimum needed to pay for the things that society wants or needs via coercion than does a dictator?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784589 wrote:Top margin was taxed at 91% because it belonged to the person? Sounds like BS I guess.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784594 wrote:Wow. All those taxes and still 7% growth.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784589 wrote:Top margin was taxed at 91% because it belonged to the person? Sounds like BS I guess.

fish82;1784599 wrote:Eisenhower's best year was 6%. He averaged 3.5% over the course of his term.

queencitybuckeye;1784610 wrote:I'm waiting for the answer to my actual question. I imagine I'll be waiting quite a while, as you'll either answer a different question and pretend it answers mine, or you'll make up something else and when everyone on the board calls out on your lies, you'll pretend it was hyperbole.

Are you as dishonest in real life as you are here?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784614 wrote:He had 2 years at 7.2

1955
1959

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784615 wrote:The answer to your question was in your question... Majority rules. If the majority doesn't want social programs and higher taxes, then no it shouldn't. If the majority does, then yes it should. It appears in not in the majority since Hillary is winning the nomination and not Bernie. But it also appears the country is shifting that way since Bernie is winning states and taking votes from Hillary. Will we see it in our lifetimes? Who knows.

and you calling something a lie, doesn't make it a lie you grumpy old fuck.

fish82;1784620 wrote:I guess blogger Dave Manuel calculates differently than Forbes. He also has Ike's overall growth at only 3.0%, and leading the pack with two separate recessions.

So there's that.

So we can use his numbers if you like.

Belly35;1784623 wrote:why is everyone the liberal socialist disagrees with a old fart? Hey! shit for brains we where young also at one time, we grump old fart grew up, began to understand, live in the real world.
Take a hint what you want now, is not what you want for your family, yourself or kids later... you'll understand that you work to hard to just have government take it away.