How the GOP Purged Me

[Skjellyfetti]

So you don't dispute the claim that there hasn't been a fiscally conservative President in the last 100 years. Gotcha.

It's not the President, Skippy.
Congress controls the budget more than you realize.

So it's not Obama's fault that the deficit is so high? Hmmmmm. Why the endless babbling about Obama increasing the budget 1000000x in only a year!!

Oh, so you're saying when Clinton balanced the budget it was Congress' doing... not the President
When Bush exploded the deficit it was the President's doing... not Congress.
When Obama increased the deficit it was both.

Gotcha. Just blame the Democrats when things go poorly and take the credit when it goes well. Very convenient.

[OL FU]

So you don't dispute the claim that there hasn't been a fiscally conservative President in the last 100 years. Gotcha.

Sure there has been one and you know who it is. But there was the pragmatic side to make the deal with the devil to get the tax cuts and military spending.

[native]

Perhaps your right, but was McCain the best the GOP could come up with?

There is no doubt that McCain showed the problems with republicans. There is no doubt that congress controlled by the republicans showed the problems with republicans. There is no doubt that Bush's refusal to stand up to a republican congress with threats of vetos showed the problems with the republicans. And the republican congress refusal to stand up to Bush on new entitlements not paid for, etc.

There are certainly some truly conservative republicans but too damn many of them are just typical politicians buying votes with their hand outs. ...

QFT!

For all of McCain's flaws, earmarks is not one of them.

[danefan]

There is no doubt that McCain showed the problems with republicans. There is no doubt that congress controlled by the republicans showed the problems with republicans. There is no doubt that Bush's refusal to stand up to a republican congress with threats of vetos showed the problems with the republicans. And the republican congress refusal to stand up to Bush on new entitlements not paid for, etc.

There are certainly some truly conservative republicans but too damn many of them are just typical politicians buying votes with their hand outs. ...

QFT!

For all of McCain's flaws, earmarks is not one of them.

Maybe I missed his point, but isn't OLFU agreeing with me? Yet you are disagreeing with me and agreeing with him?

And McCain's policy against "earmarks" doesn't make him a fiscal conservative. He still took part in some seriously large government deficit spending.

[native]

QFT!

For all of McCain's flaws, earmarks is not one of them.

Maybe I missed his point, but isn't OLFU agreeing with me? Yet you are disagreeing with me and agreeing with him?

And McCain's policy against "earmarks" doesn't make him a fiscal conservative. He still took part in some seriously large government deficit spending.

I agree and disagree with both of you, danefan.

I agree about the fiscal faults of the Bush Presidency and Republican Congresses on his watch.

I agree that McCain had flaws, but relatively speaking, fiscal irresponsibility was not not one of them. McCain has a stellar record on eschewing earmarks.

I disagree that the current Republican party and the one we will see emerging over the next two election cycles is stuck in the big government/profligate spending mode.

[Skjellyfetti]

I agree that McCain had flaws, but fiscal irresponsibility was not not one of them.

Voting for the 700 billion dollar buyout?

[native]

I agree that McCain had flaws, but fiscal irresponsibility was not not one of them.

Voting for the 700 billion dollar buyout?

There is some portion of the first bailout that was probably necessary.

[youngterrier]

Voting for the 700 billion dollar buyout?

There is some portion of the first bailout that was probably necessary.

nope

[Grizalltheway]

There is some portion of the first bailout that was probably necessary.

nope

It's unfortunate that a single company (AIG) had as much influence on our economy as it did, but the recession could have easily turned into a complete disaster if we hadn't bailed them, and others, out. Zero government interference in the economy may sound great (to some) in theory, but it just doesn't work in reality.

[youngterrier]

nope

It's unfortunate that a single company (AIG) had as much influence on our economy as it did, but the recession could have easily turned into a complete disaster if we hadn't bailed them, and others, out. Zero government interference in the economy may sound great (to some) in theory, but it just doesn't work in reality.

we're giving these big companies incentive to make BS decisions again under the hope that they will be bailed out. Give them the clear message that we aren't going to socialize their losses and they'll think twice when investing. We haven't experienced a free market, don't sell it short. Just because their is a boom-bust cycle every few years does not mean it's private businesses' fault. As a matter of fact the boom-bust cycle is the federal reserve's fault.

[native]

There is some portion of the first bailout that was probably necessary.

nope

Maybe you're right, YT, but it is easier to pick off about half of the $700 billion as more clearly an unnecessary and counterproductive overreach.

I completely agree with you about the long term deleterious consequences of the government underwriting and reinforcing bad business decisions.

[youngterrier]

nope

Maybe you're right, YT, but it is easier to pick off about half of the $700 billion as more clearly an unnecessary and counterproductive overreach.

I completely agree with you about the long term deleterious consequences of the government underwriting and reinforcing bad business decisions.

that was the easiest debate we've ever had

[native]

Maybe you're right, YT, but it is easier to pick off about half of the $700 billion as more clearly an unnecessary and counterproductive overreach.

I completely agree with you about the long term deleterious consequences of the government underwriting and reinforcing bad business decisions.

that was the easiest debate we've ever had

Except for your lack of fear of communism and lack of recognition of the inherent danger of the widespread latent marxism in modern American politics, I cannot find much in your substantive posts to disagree with.

[youngterrier]

I would like to add, however, that bailing out/buying out bad credit that needs to leave the system will only make the problem worse. Bailing out companies inflate problems

[youngterrier]

that was the easiest debate we've ever had

Except for your lack of fear of communism and lack of recognition of the inherent danger of the widesperead latent marxism in modern American politics, I cannot find much in your substantive posts to disagree with.

Oh I fear Communism but I don't think our leaders are Communists (yet)

[ASUMountaineer]

I agree that McCain had flaws, but fiscal irresponsibility was not not one of them.

Voting for the 700 billion dollar buyout?

Don't forget the GOP's Medicare prescription drug plan.

[Baldy]

So you don't dispute the claim that there hasn't been a fiscally conservative President in the last 100 years. Gotcha.

It's not the President, Skippy.
Congress controls the budget more than you realize.

So it's not Obama's fault that the deficit is so high? Hmmmmm. Why the endless babbling about Obama increasing the budget 1000000x in only a year!!

Oh, so you're saying when Clinton balanced the budget it was Congress' doing... not the President
When Bush exploded the deficit it was the President's doing... not Congress.
When Obama increased the deficit it was both.

Gotcha. Just blame the Democrats when things go poorly and take the credit when it goes well. Very convenient.

Do yourself a favor and read a little history (first person account). It will do you good, and teach you so much.

[Skjellyfetti]

Do yourself a favor and read a little history (first person account). It will do you good, and teach you so much.

I have a BA in History.



App State jokes incoming...

[Baldy]

Do yourself a favor and read a little history (first person account). It will do you good, and teach you so much.

I have a BA in History.



App State jokes incoming...

Wow...my apologies.

I seriously wonder how much first person reading was required by your professors.

[Skjellyfetti]

Wow...my apologies.

I seriously wonder how much first person reading was required by your professors.

That's where my douchebaggery about sources comes from.

And what does "first person reading" have anything to do with what we're talking about except to just change the subject...

[Baldy]

Wow...my apologies.

I seriously wonder how much first person reading was required by your professors.

That's where my douchebaggery about sources comes from.

And what does "first person reading" have anything to do with what we're talking about except to just change the subject...

Au Contraire mein freund...it has everything to do with the subject. First person reading is essential to understanding history. Hearing Jefferson or Washington or Madison or Franklin in their own words without running through the filter of a history professor is vital for context and meaning.

[Skjellyfetti]

Au Contraire mein freund...it has everything to do with the subject. First person reading is essential to understanding history. Hearing Jefferson or Washington or Madison or Franklin in their own words without running through the filter of a history professor is vital for context and meaning.

I know it does.

I'm talking about this fucking thread. What does it have to do with what we were talking about?

[Baldy]

Au Contraire mein freund...it has everything to do with the subject. First person reading is essential to understanding history. Hearing Jefferson or Washington or Madison or Franklin in their own words without running through the filter of a history professor is vital for context and meaning.

I know it does.

I'm talking about this **** thread. What does it have to do with what we were talking about?

Well, nothing.
It's no different than you trying the "race card" BS in my "Tea Baggers are Racist F**KERS thread.

[travelinman67]

...the second to last blonde...

[youtube][/youtube]

[CID1990]

Our political landscape is simply a reflection of two major but differing human traits.

Some people live and plan for the future, and others live for the now.

That's an interesting point. Which side of the political spectrum would you place the "planners?" The "live for the nows?"

Well, I have my own opinions, but I am sure I could argue them all day with an equal number of people who have a different one. Kalm's answer reminded me of one of George Carlin's bits, when he talked about US license plates.

He said that our license plates are a study in extremes. For instance, New Hampshire's plates say, "Live Free Or DIE!"

Idaho's plates, on the other hand, say "Great Potatoes".

Carlin said that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Personally, I would prefer planning for the future myself. Quite frankly, if just a modest majority of Americans lived their lives in a more responsible financial sense, we would not need all of the social programs. Or just smaller versions of the ones we have.