mguar wrote: Liberal means you're more adaptable and willing to change. and they aren't. You're also prone to spend more freely.. and they don't..
I didn't know you were a comedian. 
Spending under Obama has skyrocketed.
mguar wrote: Liberal means you're more adaptable and willing to change. and they aren't. You're also prone to spend more freely.. and they don't..
I didn't know you were a comedian. Spending under Obama has skyrocketed.
Someone please just hotlink a flounder now. 
Pres. Hope has spent more than all other presidents combined which means I have no other choice than to be a member of the ABO party.
Anyone But Obama.
Actually even if he were to win again and the Repubs were to gain a few more seats then it would give us a more balanced set up to work with.
mguar wrote: Well first the conservatives aren't liberal and the liberals aren't conservative
...but they're both insane, and they refuse to work together.
I recently read (perhaps here) that the last functional form of government is city/count office. At least they manage to fix the pot holes.
mguar wrote: Nonsense! Spending went insane during the Bush era and since then both republicans and democrats have been trying to reign it in.. The currant president didn't inherit a vacuum..
L
O
L
So, the answer to all of that increased spending was... more spending? 
DoctorBlade wrote:mguar wrote: Liberal means you're more adaptable and willing to change. and they aren't. You're also prone to spend more freely.. and they don't..I didn't know you were a comedian.
Liberals don't want to spend their money. They want to spend YOUR money.
HiTempguy wrote:mguar wrote: Nonsense! Spending went insane during the Bush era and since then both republicans and democrats have been trying to reign it in.. The currant president didn't inherit a vacuum..L O L So, the answer to all of that increased spending was... more spending?
^^^This
Do we really need to pull up the graphs showing spending and deficit accrual during each presidential period…haven’t we all seen them, aren’t they objective, quantifiable facts that leave little room for debate.
Yes, Bush was a big spender but Obama’s spending has been fantastically greater.
Mguar, how could you not know this???
The terms' definitions often vary with who is using them.
The connotation I use is this: What is the level of willingness to use government power to addrerss a perceived problem?
Most of us agree that government should address some areas of concern and should be on the sidelines on others. What we don't agree on is which issues warrant government action.
In reply to RX Reven':
If only congress controlled spending instead of Obama...
People make it partisan no matter what.
Everyone forgets. The President cannot spend without the OK of congress. Agree, congress sometimes just does what the president wants. Of course, being the head man, he gets the blame.
Witnss the completely unnecessary Iraq war. Busch wanted it, Congress said OK, Obama got stuck with it.
iceracer wrote: Witnss the completely unnecessary Iraq war. Busch wanted it, Congress said OK, Obama got stuck with it.
Meh--a trillion on a couple of wars wasn't "spending". 
That the Iraq war has ended and Bin Laden is dead apparently mean nothing, either.
mguar wrote:carguy123 wrote: Pres. Hope has spent more than all other presidents combined which means I have no other choice than to be a member of the ABO party. Anyone But Obama. Actually even if he were to win again and the Repubs were to gain a few more seats then it would give us a more balanced set up to work with.You are drinking the coolaid to believe that either party or any person will make big changes.. Let me repeat.. it's not the republicans or democrats.. There are many good people in either party and many great ideas.. The system they are working under is where the flaws are!
See a trend. Its pretty silly to think one president will ever spend less than the president before him, so yes he will spend multiple times this president and that president. You can hope for change, but you better put your chips on another subject. As for ABO? Anyone? Thats just as silly.
mguar wrote:DoctorBlade wrote:Nonsense! Spending went insane during the Bush era and since then both republicans and democrats have been trying to reign it in.. The currant president didn't inherit a vacuum..mguar wrote: Liberal means you're more adaptable and willing to change. and they aren't. You're also prone to spend more freely.. and they don't....Spending under Obama has skyrocketed...
Spending has been going insane since WWII!
Historically government Stimulus programs were known as wars (obviously these were not always entirely voluntary). Reagan changed that, a bit. His stimulus program was known as Star Wars (or just the general Defense spending increase, don't think it had a name "Cold War Plus"?).
All these "stimulus" programs primarily help government contractors and employees.
Same sh*t different day.
The names have changed, but he game remains the same.
Ron Paul
slantvaliant wrote: The terms' definitions often vary with who is using them. The connotation I use is this: What is the level of willingness to use government power to addrerss a perceived problem? Most of us agree that government should address some areas of concern and should be on the sidelines on others. What we don't agree on is which issues warrant government action.
I always thought that "conservative" and "liberal" were referring to the amounts of government intervention and/or control or leaders had over the populace.
Give me LESS gonvernment intervention and I'll show you a nation that is "allowed" to be great(er). Save for our Armed Forces, the goverment does very little correctly.
"It's all bullsh!t folks. It's all bullsh!t, and it's bad for ya"
-George Carlin
JoeyM wrote:mguar wrote: Well first the conservatives aren't liberal and the liberals aren't conservative...but they're both insane, and they refuse to work together. I recently read (perhaps here) that the last functional form of government is city/count office. At least they manage to fix the pot holes.
yep both sides are nuts, i hate having to vote for the perceived lesser of two evils.
local gov't is just as corrupt as the big time, around here they argue through the local media about potholes and they never get filled in,
N Sperlo wrote:mguar wrote:See a trend. Its pretty silly to think one president will ever spend less than the president before him, so yes he will spend multiple times this president and that president. You can hope for change, but you better put your chips on another subject. As for ABO? Anyone? Thats just as silly.carguy123 wrote: Pres. Hope has spent more than all other presidents combined which means I have no other choice than to be a member of the ABO party. Anyone But Obama. Actually even if he were to win again and the Repubs were to gain a few more seats then it would give us a more balanced set up to work with.You are drinking the coolaid to believe that either party or any person will make big changes.. Let me repeat.. it's not the republicans or democrats.. There are many good people in either party and many great ideas.. The system they are working under is where the flaws are!
Reagan was a conservative. He spent some money.
source- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-deals-of-reagan-bush-clinton-and-obama-in-one-chart/2011/07/06/gIQA98w11H_blog.html
Liberals aren't liberals any more. That name became too toxic so now they are called "progessives" because they want progress. The progress that has been tried before and failed every time kind of progress.
Incognito Bandito wrote:N Sperlo wrote:Reagan was a conservative. He spent some money.mguar wrote:See a trend. Its pretty silly to think one president will ever spend less than the president before him, so yes he will spend multiple times this president and that president. You can hope for change, but you better put your chips on another subject. As for ABO? Anyone? Thats just as silly.carguy123 wrote: Pres. Hope has spent more than all other presidents combined which means I have no other choice than to be a member of the ABO party. Anyone But Obama. Actually even if he were to win again and the Repubs were to gain a few more seats then it would give us a more balanced set up to work with.You are drinking the coolaid to believe that either party or any person will make big changes.. Let me repeat.. it's not the republicans or democrats.. There are many good people in either party and many great ideas.. The system they are working under is where the flaws are!
Ezra Klein? The same Ezra Klein from "JornOlist"? That Ezra Klein?
HiTempguy wrote:mguar wrote: Nonsense! Spending went insane during the Bush era and since then both republicans and democrats have been trying to reign it in.. The currant president didn't inherit a vacuum..L O L So, the answer to all of that increased spending was... more spending?
Can I get a "It's Bushes Fault" anyone?
ThePhranc wrote: Ezra Klein? The same Ezra Klein from "JornOlist"? That Ezra Klein?
Argumentum ad hominem much?
Government agencies are usually put in place to solve a problem, and once they have things under control (see: EPA, OSHA, NRC, USDA, etc) all anyone can see is the bad stuff they do. No one is out there thanking EPA regulators for the fact that the paint isn't being stripped off their cars by acid rain, or FDA folks for the fact that thalidomide isn't being given to pregnant women anymore. A disaster averted is easy to ignore.
Most of the major gains we've seen in life expectancy came from government funded healthcare research, government mandated health and safety regulations, government sponsored public health projects, etc. In the 1900's, US life expectancy increased by 30 years, 25 of which can be attributed to public health initiatives.
Pretty hard to look at that list and say you wish any of it hadn't happened. And most of those gains involved people who would identify as progressives fighting industry tooth and nail.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to RX Reven': If only congress controlled spending instead of Obama... People make it partisan no matter what.
You know you are right. Obama has nothing to do with spending. That said I do think it is very nice of Congress to spend $4,000,000 of our money on his last vacation. I like to think that my taxes this year went to pay for their food bill for one day. That way the money I worked for and the food they ate end up in the same place.
ppddppdd wrote:ThePhranc wrote: Ezra Klein? The same Ezra Klein from "JornOlist"? That Ezra Klein?Argumentum ad hominem much? Government agencies are usually put in place to solve a problem, and once they have things under control (see: EPA, OSHA, NRC, USDA, etc) all anyone can see is the bad stuff they do. No one is out there thanking EPA regulators for the fact that the paint isn't being stripped off their cars by acid rain, or FDA folks for the fact that thalidomide isn't being given to pregnant women anymore. A disaster averted is easy to ignore. Most of the major gains we've seen in life expectancy came from government funded healthcare research, government mandated health and safety regulations, government sponsored public health projects, etc. In the 1900's, US life expectancy increased by 30 years, 25 of which can be attributed to public health initiatives. Pretty hard to look at that list and say you wish any of it hadn't happened. And most of those gains involved people who would identify as progressives fighting industry tooth and nail.
Is it still ad hom when the person has a track record of being an out and out liar? That is Ezra Kleins MO and reputation.
Also I think you're wrong about people not seeing the good thing these bureaucratic entities did a long time ago. What do see is the fraud waste and abuse in the name self perpetuation.
Whole pile of 'em.
You'll need to log in to post.
