My Kind of Democrat....

[Steelplate]

You are such a bitter little tool aren't you? Here's a clue for you, he's following a pattern set by former NM Governor, Gary Johnson (R).

Track Record

Ummm... pointing out that you don't have to hurt people to cut is being bitter? fuck you.

BTW... good for Johnson... I agree with him too.

The bitter comment is based on all of the woe is me bullshit dreck you post on this board. You're a bitter and angry person. Fuck you back and Happy Holidays comrade.

I'm actually not bitter at all. I'm doing fine... struggling a little getting our Second kid through college... but nothing to piss and moan about. Seems to me that most of the pissing and moaning comes from the right... I'm just providing the service of an alternative viewpoint...one that I happen to agree with.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is "nuts" about expecting government to live on the same amount of money instead of constantly demanding a bigger chunk of our hides every year?

Deficits mean future tax increases, those who take deficits seriously want the defense budget slashed.



But you're half right certainly no tax increase is necessary, with all the tax revenue we take in it should be quite simple to balance the budget and lower the debt, and our 2 status quo parties do the opposite.

Taxes themselves represent a prime difference between the Left and the Right.

For the Right, revenue is for the purpose of supporting legitimate functions of government...and if there is more revenue than necessary for same, a tax cut is in order.

For the Left, taxes are for the purpose of wealth redistribution...'income equality.'

That's your choice when you vote in 2012.

That's what I was told in 2000, ended up just being a bunch of lies.

Not saying that you're lying, republican politicians are.

2001-2007 was almost pure and unfiltered republican control of gov't, and they skyrocketed debt, skyrocketed budgets, ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits.

I won't fall for it again.

 

[kwc57]

Ummm... pointing out that you don't have to hurt people to cut is being bitter? fuck you.

BTW... good for Johnson... I agree with him too.

The bitter comment is based on all of the woe is me bullshit dreck you post on this board. You're a bitter and angry person. Fuck you back and Happy Holidays comrade.

I'm actually not bitter at all. I'm doing fine... struggling a little getting our Second kid through college... but nothing to piss and moan about. Seems to me that most of the pissing and moaning comes from the right... I'm just providing the service of an alternative viewpoint...one that I happen to agree with.

Perhaps you should go back and review your posts.

 

[Steelplate]

The bitter comment is based on all of the woe is me bullshit dreck you post on this board. You're a bitter and angry person. Fuck you back and Happy Holidays comrade.

I'm actually not bitter at all. I'm doing fine... struggling a little getting our Second kid through college... but nothing to piss and moan about. Seems to me that most of the pissing and moaning comes from the right... I'm just providing the service of an alternative viewpoint...one that I happen to agree with.

Perhaps you should go back and review your posts.

Perhaps you should view the right's post without the rose colored glasses.

 

[BluePhantom]

That's what I was told in 2000, ended up just being a bunch of lies.

Not saying that you're lying, republican politicians are.

2001-2007 was almost pure and unfiltered republican control of gov't, and they skyrocketed debt, skyrocketed budgets, ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits.

I won't fall for it again.

Just curious but have you bothered to have a look at what's happened to the debt since then?

"* End of fiscal year 2008, when the accrued debt under the 43 presidents was $5.851 trillion, to the end of fiscal 2012, when the debt is projected to reach $11.881 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents.

* Obama inauguration, when the accrued debt was $6.307 trillion, to the end of fiscal year 2013, when the debt is projected to reach $12.784 trillion. Yes, more than the previous 43 presidents."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Deficits mean future tax increases, those who take deficits seriously want the defense budget slashed.



But you're half right certainly no tax increase is necessary, with all the tax revenue we take in it should be quite simple to balance the budget and lower the debt, and our 2 status quo parties do the opposite.

Taxes themselves represent a prime difference between the Left and the Right.

For the Right, revenue is for the purpose of supporting legitimate functions of government...and if there is more revenue than necessary for same, a tax cut is in order.

For the Left, taxes are for the purpose of wealth redistribution...'income equality.'

That's your choice when you vote in 2012.

That's what I was told in 2000, ended up just being a bunch of lies.

Not saying that you're lying, republican politicians are.

2001-2007 was almost pure and unfiltered republican control of gov't, and they skyrocketed debt, skyrocketed budgets, ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits.

I won't fall for it again.

I don't know who told you what or when...but perhaps you've heard of the Bush Tax Cuts?

"...ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits."

Now, as a conservative, I hate it when I have to defend Bush's economics...but everything is relative.
For example, Deficit has to be related to the total economy…

Under Obama it is 9%

Under Reagan it was 6%

Under Bush it never got higher than 5%

Review & Outlook: The Democratic Fisc - WSJ.com

and Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER « Start Thinking Right


Spending, deficits and debt are intrinsically related to this choice:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Taxes themselves represent a prime difference between the Left and the Right.

For the Right, revenue is for the purpose of supporting legitimate functions of government...and if there is more revenue than necessary for same, a tax cut is in order.

For the Left, taxes are for the purpose of wealth redistribution...'income equality.'

That's your choice when you vote in 2012.

That's what I was told in 2000, ended up just being a bunch of lies.

Not saying that you're lying, republican politicians are.

2001-2007 was almost pure and unfiltered republican control of gov't, and they skyrocketed debt, skyrocketed budgets, ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits.

I won't fall for it again.

I don't know who told you what or when...but perhaps you've heard of the Bush Tax Cuts?

"...ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits."

Now, as a conservative, I hate it when I have to defend Bush's economics...but everything is relative.
For example, Deficit has to be related to the total economy…

Under Obama it is 9%

Under Reagan it was 6%

Under Bush it never got higher than 5%

Review & Outlook: The Democratic Fisc - WSJ.com

and Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER « Start Thinking Right


Spending, deficits and debt are intrinsically related to this choice:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Everything that you and the other poster have said about Obama increasing debt and spending way more than Bush, the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, each president lowers the bar and makes it worse than the president before him. I guarantee you whether it's a republcan in 2012 or 2016 as president, he will outspend Obama and increase the debt, that's a personal guarantee. Sounds crazy, but it would've also sounded crazy to say in 2000 that Bush would outspend Clinton. And Bush made Clinton look more conservative than an accountant.

And Bush grew gov't enormously, look at the invention of the Dept of Homeland Security and how much that costs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's what I was told in 2000, ended up just being a bunch of lies.

Not saying that you're lying, republican politicians are.

2001-2007 was almost pure and unfiltered republican control of gov't, and they skyrocketed debt, skyrocketed budgets, ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits.

I won't fall for it again.

I don't know who told you what or when...but perhaps you've heard of the Bush Tax Cuts?

"...ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits."

Now, as a conservative, I hate it when I have to defend Bush's economics...but everything is relative.
For example, Deficit has to be related to the total economy…

Under Obama it is 9%

Under Reagan it was 6%

Under Bush it never got higher than 5%

Review & Outlook: The Democratic Fisc - WSJ.com

and Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER « Start Thinking Right


Spending, deficits and debt are intrinsically related to this choice:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Everything that you and the other poster have said about Obama increasing debt and spending way more than Bush, the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, each president lowers the bar and makes it worse than the president before him. I guarantee you whether it's a republcan in 2012 or 2016 as president, he will outspend Obama and increase the debt, that's a personal guarantee. Sounds crazy, but it would've also sounded crazy to say in 2000 that Bush would outspend Clinton. And Bush made Clinton look more conservative than an accountant.

And Bush grew gov't enormously, look at the invention of the Dept of Homeland Security and how much that costs.

"the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton."
True.

Clinton increased the national debt 41%.


Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Bush was 77%
Figures are here:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Therefore, the A. and B. choices are the best way to decide on how to vote.

Again:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't know who told you what or when...but perhaps you've heard of the Bush Tax Cuts?

"...ballooned gov't to never before seen sizes and had out of control deficits."

Now, as a conservative, I hate it when I have to defend Bush's economics...but everything is relative.
For example, Deficit has to be related to the total economy…

Under Obama it is 9%

Under Reagan it was 6%

Under Bush it never got higher than 5%

Review & Outlook: The Democratic Fisc - WSJ.com

and Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER « Start Thinking Right


Spending, deficits and debt are intrinsically related to this choice:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Everything that you and the other poster have said about Obama increasing debt and spending way more than Bush, the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, each president lowers the bar and makes it worse than the president before him. I guarantee you whether it's a republcan in 2012 or 2016 as president, he will outspend Obama and increase the debt, that's a personal guarantee. Sounds crazy, but it would've also sounded crazy to say in 2000 that Bush would outspend Clinton. And Bush made Clinton look more conservative than an accountant.

And Bush grew gov't enormously, look at the invention of the Dept of Homeland Security and how much that costs.

"the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton."
True.

Clinton increased the national debt 41%.


Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Bush was 77%
Figures are here:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Therefore, the A. and B. choices are the best way to decide on how to vote.

Again:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Clinton taking the debt from 4.3 trillion to 5.6 trillion and Bush taking it from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion is why I should vote for someone from Bush's party?

Boy if I were a democrat I'd be loving your strategy.

When I see debt skyrocketing I see debt skyrocketing, I couldn't give a shit less which party is at fault. It'll increase consistently irregardless of which status quo party is running the ship.

 

[Katzndogz]

You might like this democrat too.


Dem lawmaker blasts

One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House “NEVER TALK TO REAL PEOPLE.” Another former Obama staffer confided to me that it was clear to him that the president didn’t mind giving speeches (lectures), but really avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway. “He doesn’t seem to derive energy from spending time with regular people the way Clinton did. He rallies to give speeches for the big crowds, but avoids individual contact,” the former staffer recalled. This “arms-length” attitude extends to top decision-makers in the president’s administration. A senior housing official recently told me that, despite the fact that he was responsible for crafting policies to stem the foreclosure crisis, he had personally never met with a homeowner who had been foreclosed on.

 

[francoHFW]

All he has to do is cave in to the "No compromise un-American" (TIME) GOP and pander to the greedy rich. Just a little more progressive than Bug Tussle, W. Va.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything that you and the other poster have said about Obama increasing debt and spending way more than Bush, the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton.

Has nothing to do with party, each president lowers the bar and makes it worse than the president before him. I guarantee you whether it's a republcan in 2012 or 2016 as president, he will outspend Obama and increase the debt, that's a personal guarantee. Sounds crazy, but it would've also sounded crazy to say in 2000 that Bush would outspend Clinton. And Bush made Clinton look more conservative than an accountant.

And Bush grew gov't enormously, look at the invention of the Dept of Homeland Security and how much that costs.

"the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton."
True.

Clinton increased the national debt 41%.


Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Bush was 77%
Figures are here:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Therefore, the A. and B. choices are the best way to decide on how to vote.

Again:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Clinton taking the debt from 4.3 trillion to 5.6 trillion and Bush taking it from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion is why I should vote for someone from Bush's party?

Boy if I were a democrat I'd be loving your strategy.

When I see debt skyrocketing I see debt skyrocketing, I couldn't give a shit less which party is at fault. It'll increase consistently irregardless of which status quo party is running the ship.

Try to focus like a laser.

No, the spending is not the reason. This, again, is the reason:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

As a sentient individual, choose one.

 

[BOBO]

Chinese Model: Why China Does Capitalism Better than U.S. - TIME

Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia. Where did this kind of Democrat go? Saw him this morning on 'Morning Joe,' and this Democrat said what our Leftie friends won't accept as the truth when it comes from Republicans.

Imagine if '08 saw the election of a candidate with executive experience...we'd have had a President who could solve problems, form coalitions, work with the other side. Instead, this blow-hard who claims he's the captain of the ship, but can't control the weather....



1. "Conservative Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) criticized the president Monday for not showing enough leadership on the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan.

2. “Let me tell you right now what I can’t understand. We only have one topic on the table that everyone sort of agrees with, and it should be the template, which is Bowles-Simpson,” said Manchin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Why doesn’t our leadership, why doesn’t our president, why don’t our leaders in the Senate take this template and put it together in bill form?”

3. “It’s not the leadership that I’m used to,” said the West Virginia senator. “As governor, I’d wear you out, I’d find you.”

4. “I’m pretty independent, as you know. I want this president to succeed. If you’re an American, you want your president to do well,” he said.

5. Manchin also railed against the dysfunction in the Senate, pointing out that the U.S. Senate hadn’t passed a budget in three years.

6. “I don’t have an excuse. There’s no excuse. I would have been impeached as governor,” he said.

7. As one of the dwindling number of conservative Democrats,..."
Joe Manchin: Where?s White House leadership? - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Remember this ad?

Dead Aim - Joe Manchin for West Virginia TV Ad - YouTube

 

[PoliticalChic]

All he has to do is cave in to the "No compromise un-American" (TIME) GOP and pander to the greedy rich. Just a little more progressive than Bug Tussle, W. Va.

Based on your short-term memory loss, Tugboat, I understand why you've already forgotten post #37...

....so, to remind you of which party is of the "no-compromise" variety, here is a reprise:

1. On Friday, Republicans offered a “go small” plan that would reduce the deficit by $640 billion — including a pay freeze and bigger pension contributions for federal workers, cuts in farm subsidies and other spending reductions. According to one GOP aide, this is “the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, stuff that everyone agrees on.”

a. Republicans even gave in to one of the Democrats’ long-held demands, eliminating the special tax break for corporate jets, which would raise $3 billion in new taxes over 10 years.

2. The Democrats rejected the GOP offer.

a. Patty Murray, Democratic co-chairman of the supercommittee, declared “it does not meet, even close to coming to meet, the issues that we set out from the beginning: fair and balanced.” Translation: Democrats won’t sign on to any spending cuts, no matter how modest, if Republicans do not agree to massive tax increases.

3. [Dems] dismissed a proposal by Sen. Pat Toomey that included some $300 billion in tax increases. In making this offer, Toomey and his fellow Republicans crossed a line in the sand their party had drawn — risking a major backlash from the GOP rank-and-file and the conservative grassroots. But instead of accepting this concession in good faith and putting forward a serious counteroffer, Democrats immediately attacked it and demanded $1 trillion in tax increases —

4. ...failure. ...may be precisely what the Democrats want. With President Obama’s approval ratings in the tank, and their party poised to lose control of the Senate in 2012, Democrats know their only hope to stave off electoral disaster is to run a negative campaign that paints Republicans as intransigent extremists.

5. It is the Democrats who have rejected every offer and every compromise Republicans put forward."Our super-pathetic debt supercommittee - The Washington Post


With amazing consistency, every one of your posts is wrong!
This advice for you: If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is probably not for you.


I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.
Hope ya’ crunches come in bunches!

 

[Dr.Drock]

"the same could be said about Bush increasing the debt and spending way more than Clinton."
True.

Clinton increased the national debt 41%.


Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Bush was 77%
Figures are here:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Therefore, the A. and B. choices are the best way to decide on how to vote.

Again:
A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

Clinton taking the debt from 4.3 trillion to 5.6 trillion and Bush taking it from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion is why I should vote for someone from Bush's party?

Boy if I were a democrat I'd be loving your strategy.

When I see debt skyrocketing I see debt skyrocketing, I couldn't give a shit less which party is at fault. It'll increase consistently irregardless of which status quo party is running the ship.

Try to focus like a laser.

No, the spending is not the reason. This, again, is the reason:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

As a sentient individual, choose one.

If those were actual choices, it'd be easy.

But that's not what we have, as history has shown.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clinton taking the debt from 4.3 trillion to 5.6 trillion and Bush taking it from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion is why I should vote for someone from Bush's party?

Boy if I were a democrat I'd be loving your strategy.

When I see debt skyrocketing I see debt skyrocketing, I couldn't give a shit less which party is at fault. It'll increase consistently irregardless of which status quo party is running the ship.

Try to focus like a laser.

No, the spending is not the reason. This, again, is the reason:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

As a sentient individual, choose one.

If those were actual choices, it'd be easy.

But that's not what we have, as history has shown.

Based on your post, you haven't studied history.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Try to focus like a laser.

No, the spending is not the reason. This, again, is the reason:

A. Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.

B. Equality before the law, free market capitalism, the United States Constitution.

As a sentient individual, choose one.

If those were actual choices, it'd be easy.

But that's not what we have, as history has shown.

Based on your post, you haven't studied history.

Lol you're the one using Bush's debt skyrocketing history as to why I should vote for a republican, and you're attacking my knowledge of history?



One couldn't know history and still be a partisan. It's like choosing to wear shit or diarhea cologne without knowing the smell.

 

[kwc57]

I'm actually not bitter at all. I'm doing fine... struggling a little getting our Second kid through college... but nothing to piss and moan about. Seems to me that most of the pissing and moaning comes from the right... I'm just providing the service of an alternative viewpoint...one that I happen to agree with.

Perhaps you should go back and review your posts.

Perhaps you should view the right's post without the rose colored glasses.

I don't know an individual poster named "right's". I do know one called Steelplate and a quick review of his posts show a very bitter person.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If those were actual choices, it'd be easy.

But that's not what we have, as history has shown.

Based on your post, you haven't studied history.

Lol you're the one using Bush's debt skyrocketing history as to why I should vote for a republican, and you're attacking my knowledge of history?



One couldn't know history and still be a partisan. It's like choosing to wear shit or diarhea cologne without knowing the smell.

"...using Bush's debt skyrocketing history ..."
No, I'm not.

You brought up Clinton, and I agreed vis-a-vis Bush....

...I then pointed out that spending was hardly the basis for the vote.

I won't repeat what the basis should be....but it contains two choices.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Based on your post, you haven't studied history.

Lol you're the one using Bush's debt skyrocketing history as to why I should vote for a republican, and you're attacking my knowledge of history?



One couldn't know history and still be a partisan. It's like choosing to wear shit or diarhea cologne without knowing the smell.

"...using Bush's debt skyrocketing history ..."
No, I'm not.

You brought up Clinton, and I agreed vis-a-vis Bush....

...I then pointed out that spending was hardly the basis for the vote.

I won't repeat what the basis should be....but it contains two choices.

I only vote for fiscal conservatives.

With how the republican party is currently constructed, that means I can only vote for Ron Paul or no one since he's the only fiscal conservative.

Big gov't Newt or Romneycare Romney? Just asking for more Obama.