Credit is available to people that can afford it.
If that’s what they mean by “credit drying up” then credit has been needing to dry up a bit for a long while.

http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/analysis-why-the-republicans-cant-replace-sarah-palin/

It really irritates me with all these stupid environmental groups and their frivolous lawsuits. These people are the product of mindless sensationalism.
They should be required to post a surety bond for the duration of their suit to restrict their activities. Or something.

Progressivism was a non-partisan movement from the very beginning. It became strong after the rapid rise and decline of populism, when the city-dwellers of the midwest came to realize that their interests lay with the farmers and other rural folk.

These days, certain groups (led by Paul Krugman and Daily Kos) are trying to re-name liberalism to progressivism, because they have figured out that people seem to have gotten wise to liberalism and don’t care for it so much anymore.
And this is really, really important, because it’s really a statement of values. It’s a statement that appearances are to be valued over substance. That’s why these people are so hyper-sensitive, ever-ready to be offended en masse at the drop of a hat at some nebulous slight that any ordinary person would never pick up on.

Now then, it is the function of the government to set policy (executive branch), and one of the many methods gov’t does this is through tax policies, both positive and negative. It’s like the path of least resistance in simple fluid mechanics.
And if you really believe that the Laffer curve is sound economic theory, show me your proof, and I will deliver a quite capable refutation.
Taxation is not a bad thing. It’s a good thing, and it does good things for us.
It’s over-burdensome taxation that’s a bad thing. Consider the simple fluid mechanics example, and you’ll see why.

But yes, misguided and ill-informed environmentalists have been holding up progress in various areas of the state, and I believe they shold suffer monetarily for it, ie bankrupt the SOBs.

Just wish you would have mentioned that.

I looked at the Sharon Statement, and it made me mad.
I wrote a post showing, item by item, the difference between conservatives and neo-conservatives (termed “neo-liberals” in the post, as I write for a global audience).
Over and over again, the neo-cons believe only in the freedom of money, while they work against the personal freedoms that conservativism has traditionally stood for.

IMHO, both Eisenhower & TR were among the greatest presidents this nation has ever seen. Reagan’s whole premise was the sovietization of America. The man was a menace, and thank God he’s dead.