Yeah, and that *trickle down*

• Good old boy, Trent, what about - the porch? sm - Starcat
  • Now, now... - American Woman
    • Yeah, right; I forgot, more compassionate conservatism. - LOL - no msg - Starcat
      • Yeah, and that *trickle down* - American Woman

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Closing all the mental institutions and putting the insane on the streets was atrocious - but - it got them off disability and welfare...after all...you had to have an address to get those benefits. More can be found at the following link:  http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0406a/reaganhomeless.html

Reagan's Homeless

by:  Peter Dreier

Reagan came to office in 1981 with what he viewed as a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, Reagan increased federal spending by dramatically increasing the military budget while slashing domestic programs for working class Americans, particularly the poor. The result was a bloated federal deficit that mortgaged the nation's future.

Reagan's fans give him credit for restoring the nation's prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years benefitted the already well-off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined. The nation's homeownership rate fell. Despite boom times for the rich, during Reagan's two terms in the White House, the poverty rate in cities grew.

Reagan owed little to urban voters, big-city mayors, black or Hispanic leaders, or labor unions -- the major advocates for metropolitan concerns. His indifference to urban problems was legendary. Early in his presidency, at a White House reception, Reagan went up to the only black member of his Cabinet, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Samuel Pierce, and said: "How are you, Mr. Mayor? I'm glad to meet you. How are things in your city?"

Reagan not only failed to recognize his own HUD Secretary, he failed to deal with the growing corruption scandal at the agency. Indeed, during the Reagan years, HUD became a feeding trough for Republican campaign contributors. Fortunately for Reagan, the media didn't uncover the "HUD Scandal" until he left office. It resulted in the indictment and conviction of top Reagan administration officials for illegally targeting housing subsidies to politically connected developers.

I decided to Google this phrase and see what came up.  Not suprising the first on the list was from Rush Limbaugh.   I did find this too though and I couldn't agree more.  I have no idea who wrote it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trickle-Up-Poverty-and-the-by-Cameron-Salisbury-080923-947.html

That's exactly what I said.  Scarborough has always supported Bush.  There is a difference between supporting and blindly following.  For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled.  You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth.  That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty.  I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand.  Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States.  People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity.  Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes.   He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day.  And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself.  And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God.  They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money.  He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board.  If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this:  *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.*  I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post. 

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution.  Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI.  Who are you KIDDING?  Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again. 

but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what?  Impeach Cheney?  Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens.  He's a Republican, too.  (President pro tempore of the Senate).  Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes.  What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway.  Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.