What in the hell is wrong with people?

[gtarguy921]

Bush and Co grew the Fed Gov more than any administration since Roosevelt. They used signing statements like a free pass to ignore Congress, the USSC and the Constitution. They spent our grandchildren's children into debt, and just flat-assed lost billions more, and they lied us into Iraq.

And we're "scapegoating" Bush, while Obama's "guilty of impeachable offenses"

Aint Cult-Tard objectivity grand?

 

[AntiParty]

I wondered for years how on earth did Hitler or Stalin or Mao come to wield such absolute power. I've found my answer witnessing the "new left" and their utter devotion to a leader and they walk in lock step with the ideaology never waivering, never questioning.

Progressives aren't liberals at all. They are pro government in your face control freaks but who pretend to be liberal.

One of the most disturbing trends of late is the "get Congress out of the way and let Obama do his job" talking point.

It's jaw dropping unreal because left wing whackos genuinely believe that Obama should rule by EO.

So I've found my answer to an old question and it's most disturbing to say the least.

ETA: i am not saying Obama is Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Just wanted to be perfectly clear. It's the devotees, the rabid followers of any "leader" that disturbingly are willing to give said leader/government the power of complete control over their lives.

Progressives fit the bill. And I do differentiate between Progressives and true classical liberals.

You could have educated THOUSANDS with this statement alone, "Progressives aren't liberals at all". Liberal amounts of? Even Democrats aren't Liberals today. The Republicans are the current Liberals. I'm a non-bias Republican base and this is fact.

 

[AntiParty]

You actually believe that?

According to most of your ilk they were all heartless slave masters, rapists, terrorists and greedy landlords.

Which is it?

They can't make up their insane minds, it's like everything else... whatever meme works for the moment to advance their totalitarian agenda. Doesn't matter if they completely contradict themselves in the same damn paragraph, as long as they are pushing that agenda down the road to totalitarianism. That's the goal, that's the objective, nothing else really matters. Fuck honesty and integrity, that left the tracks a LONG time ago, along with sanity!

Like I said. Let them collapse the system.

When the feds implode like the New Orleans Police Dept, these parasites will start dropping like flies and forcing us to kill them off as they attempt to steal the things they need to live.

I don't even care anymore. They should have been aborted or have killed themselves accidentally by now. There's too many safety warnings for this to be resolved fast enough for me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0]REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! - YouTube[/ame]

The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.

 

[Boss]

When Ronnie Reagan came to office, the National Debt, including two World Wars, was all of 990 Billion.

What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about how he has "cut the deficit in half" down to $600 billion! So... one year of Obama's BEST deficit is 2/3 of the total national debt before Reagan, and this is touted as something great and wonderful he has accomplished.

While a $600 billion deficit may be great by Obama standards, it's abysmal by all other standards and isn't helping reduce the national debt by even a liberal insane stretch of the imagination.

 

[Boss]

The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.

You know, I actually think you make a relevant point. Our entire problem, all party politics aside, is how We The People have come to view our Government and it's role. Every election, we go out there and vote for the guy/gal who promises to "bring home the bacon" and give us stuff. It's the nature of the beast we've created to continue growing and expanding, increasing power and taxation while gobbling up individual freedom and liberty in the process.

I love a story Walter E. Williams tells to illustrate this point. He is often asked why he doesn't run for office, and his standard response is, "because no one would vote for me!" He continues on entertaining his potential run... "I would tell you that I've read the Constitution, I know what it says the role of Federal government is, and I don't believe it should be doing about 90% of what it's doing! So, when you elect me, I promise I won't be bringing home the bacon and I won't be voting for things the government has no business funding." He goes on to ask, "how many votes do you imagine I would get with such a message?"

Williams point is, whether Republican or Democrat, we vote for the candidate who is going to do the most for us personally, and this has become the way things are done. We can't seem to break this nasty cycle because it has become the way we measure a "good" candidate... what are they going to do for ME? The more they do, the bigger the Federal Leviathan becomes and the worse the problem gets. Obviously, it's going to take society thinking of Government in a different dynamic, which it's currently unwilling to do.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you keep repeating this lie? There were no Clinton surpluses.

Here are the figures from the Treasury Department which show total indebtedness as the the Data of Clinton's inauguration up until Bush was sworn in. Every single year showed an increase in total indebtedness.

So please stop lying now that you've been educated.

January 20, 1994 = $4,500,676,535,249.79
January 20, 1995 = $4,796,537,934,595.60
January 20, 1996 = $4,988,397,941,589.45
January 20, 1997 = $5,309,774,506,681.99
January 20, 1998 = $5,495,525,658,807.45
January 20, 1999 = $5,623,807,213,463.02
January 20, 2000 = $5,706,174,969,873.86
January 20, 2001 = $5,727,776,738,304.64

Which means instead of tripling, like it did under Reagan, he got it under control.

But he lied about a blow job. That was the important thing.

Again, you are proven wrong. Your statement was that Clinton balanced the budget. As the evidence clearly shows, he did not. Now you want to claim he "got it under control" but that is also a lie. Congress voted to count the Social Security trust fund as part of the general fund, so Clinton spent that money and still ran a $200 billion+ deficit every year. At the end of his 8 years, we were $1.2 trillion MORE in debt, plus we had spent most of the money in the Social Security trust fund.

Congress has always counted the Social Security Trust fund as part of the balance.

The point being that we were taking in more money than we were spending. And if Bush hadn't come along and given a huge tax cut to the rich while putting a war on a credit card, we'd probably be fiscally solvent by now.

 

[JoeB131]

When Ronnie Reagan came to office, the National Debt, including two World Wars, was all of 990 Billion.

What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about how he has "cut the deficit in half" down to $600 billion! So... one year of Obama's BEST deficit is 2/3 of the total national debt before Reagan, and this is touted as something great and wonderful he has accomplished.

While a $600 billion deficit may be great by Obama standards, it's abysmal by all other standards and isn't helping reduce the national debt by even a liberal insane stretch of the imagination.

As a percentage of national debt or a percentage of GDP, reagan's debts were a lot worse.

And yes, given that Bush had left the country crippled with deficits of over a trillion, getting it down to $600 billion with a crippled economy and a congress beholden to the rich is an accomplishment.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This is not about who gets what or who has more Senators. Federal tax money shouldn't be used to take care of Illinois problems. That's the STATE'S responsibility. This is where you uneducated hicks fail in understanding Federalism. It's probably not your fault, you were probably taught by illiterate Dept. of Education public school teachers who never read the Constitution. Instead of teaching you about how our system of government works, they spent all their time teaching you to hate Southern people. Now you're a fucking bigot.

Um, I went to Catholic Schools. WHich is why I hate Religious assholes.

But to the point. Ike realized we needed FEDERAL interstates. Both for economic and militarily strategic reasons. (Both to move military assets quickly, and in case we had to evacuate the cities in a hurry.)

Here's the thing. I think the Constitution is a great starting point, but I would no more take the opinions of 18th century Slave Rapists on how to manage a colony than I would take their advice on medical treatment. (which would no doubt involve bleeding.)

And this is why I think we'll eventually have to go to war and shoot you or run you out of our country.

I live in the 21st Century, guy, not the 18th.

It's insane to make our policies based on 'Well, what would Thomas Jefferson think of an interstate?"

 

[JoeB131]

The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.

You know, I actually think you make a relevant point. Our entire problem, all party politics aside, is how We The People have come to view our Government and it's role. Every election, we go out there and vote for the guy/gal who promises to "bring home the bacon" and give us stuff. It's the nature of the beast we've created to continue growing and expanding, increasing power and taxation while gobbling up individual freedom and liberty in the process.

I love a story Walter E. Williams tells to illustrate this point. He is often asked why he doesn't run for office, and his standard response is, "because no one would vote for me!" He continues on entertaining his potential run... "I would tell you that I've read the Constitution, I know what it says the role of Federal government is, and I don't believe it should be doing about 90% of what it's doing! So, when you elect me, I promise I won't be bringing home the bacon and I won't be voting for things the government has no business funding." He goes on to ask, "how many votes do you imagine I would get with such a message?"

Williams point is, whether Republican or Democrat, we vote for the candidate who is going to do the most for us personally, and this has become the way things are done. We can't seem to break this nasty cycle because it has become the way we measure a "good" candidate... what are they going to do for ME? The more they do, the bigger the Federal Leviathan becomes and the worse the problem gets. Obviously, it's going to take society thinking of Government in a different dynamic, which it's currently unwilling to do.

No, the real problem is that we have people like Williams who think America would function better if we ran like Somalia with a government that doesn't do anything.

Me, I like having function roads and police departments and fire departments and clean water.

And I like the fact that my insurance company can't call my cancer a "Pre-existing condition" if I get sick.

Used to be, Republicans like Ike and Nixon understood the role of government to do good things. I would even go so far as to say Reagan did.

But now the GOP is dominated by various religious, libertarian and gun nuts who seem to think every man for himself is a good thing.

And they wonder why they can't win elections?

 

[JoeB131]

It is awesome to watch people like Pete and Boss stomp their little feet that they can't get their way on shit anymore.

 

[tinydancer]

The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.

You know, I actually think you make a relevant point. Our entire problem, all party politics aside, is how We The People have come to view our Government and it's role. Every election, we go out there and vote for the guy/gal who promises to "bring home the bacon" and give us stuff. It's the nature of the beast we've created to continue growing and expanding, increasing power and taxation while gobbling up individual freedom and liberty in the process.

I love a story Walter E. Williams tells to illustrate this point. He is often asked why he doesn't run for office, and his standard response is, "because no one would vote for me!" He continues on entertaining his potential run... "I would tell you that I've read the Constitution, I know what it says the role of Federal government is, and I don't believe it should be doing about 90% of what it's doing! So, when you elect me, I promise I won't be bringing home the bacon and I won't be voting for things the government has no business funding." He goes on to ask, "how many votes do you imagine I would get with such a message?"

Williams point is, whether Republican or Democrat, we vote for the candidate who is going to do the most for us personally, and this has become the way things are done. We can't seem to break this nasty cycle because it has become the way we measure a "good" candidate... what are they going to do for ME? The more they do, the bigger the Federal Leviathan becomes and the worse the problem gets. Obviously, it's going to take society thinking of Government in a different dynamic, which it's currently unwilling to do.

No, the real problem is that we have people like Williams who think America would function better if we ran like Somalia with a government that doesn't do anything.

Me, I like having function roads and police departments and fire departments and clean water.

And I like the fact that my insurance company can't call my cancer a "Pre-existing condition" if I get sick.

Used to be, Republicans like Ike and Nixon understood the role of government to do good things. I would even go so far as to say Reagan did.

But now the GOP is dominated by various religious, libertarian and gun nuts who seem to think every man for himself is a good thing.

And they wonder why they can't win elections?

Drunk as a skunk right now

 

[JoeB131]

[
Drunk as a skunk right now

Is there any time when you aren't posting drunk?

 

[Boss]

Which means instead of tripling, like it did under Reagan, he got it under control.

But he lied about a blow job. That was the important thing.

Again, you are proven wrong. Your statement was that Clinton balanced the budget. As the evidence clearly shows, he did not. Now you want to claim he "got it under control" but that is also a lie. Congress voted to count the Social Security trust fund as part of the general fund, so Clinton spent that money and still ran a $200 billion+ deficit every year. At the end of his 8 years, we were $1.2 trillion MORE in debt, plus we had spent most of the money in the Social Security trust fund.

Congress has always counted the Social Security Trust fund as part of the balance.

The point being that we were taking in more money than we were spending. And if Bush hadn't come along and given a huge tax cut to the rich while putting a war on a credit card, we'd probably be fiscally solvent by now.

You're wrong. Prior to LBJ, the SS trust fund was untouchable. The Democrat congress under LBJ sponsored a bill that passed early in 1969, which enabled Congress to "borrow" from the fund to help offset deficit spending on certain funding bills. This 'dipping into the kitty' was common through the 70s and 80s, and in 1987 Congress (controlled by Democrats) voted to count the trust as part of the general fund. Currently, all that remains is a stack of IOUs that have never been repaid, just as 70 million Baby Boomers are set to retire.

Bush did not come along and give a huge tax cut to the rich. Bush gave an across the board tax cut to every taxpayer in America. This was economically stupid because it effectively cancelled itself out. More revenue was realized from top marginal earners while less revenue was realized by the larger middle income group, so the result was not the same as Reagan realized when he only reduced the top marginal rates and expanded the base.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are essentially trivial in terms of debt. The total cost of both wars was about half of what Obama overspent his first year in office. We would not have been fiscally solvent under ANY circumstance, we are running budget deficits every year with no end in sight. Democrats refuse to allow even decreases in amount of built in increases in funding for social entitlements. You're here in this very thread yammering about MORE money for infrastructure projects that don't exist.

As I said before, you are an economic illiterate.

 

[Boss]

When Ronnie Reagan came to office, the National Debt, including two World Wars, was all of 990 Billion.

What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about how he has "cut the deficit in half" down to $600 billion! So... one year of Obama's BEST deficit is 2/3 of the total national debt before Reagan, and this is touted as something great and wonderful he has accomplished.

While a $600 billion deficit may be great by Obama standards, it's abysmal by all other standards and isn't helping reduce the national debt by even a liberal insane stretch of the imagination.

As a percentage of national debt or a percentage of GDP, reagan's debts were a lot worse.

And yes, given that Bush had left the country crippled with deficits of over a trillion, getting it down to $600 billion with a crippled economy and a congress beholden to the rich is an accomplishment.

No it wasn't. You don't even know what the GDP is. Bush didn't have deficits over a trillion. The ONLY president to ever run a trillion-dollar deficit in a single year is Barry Soetoro.

 

[Boss]

The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.

You know, I actually think you make a relevant point. Our entire problem, all party politics aside, is how We The People have come to view our Government and it's role. Every election, we go out there and vote for the guy/gal who promises to "bring home the bacon" and give us stuff. It's the nature of the beast we've created to continue growing and expanding, increasing power and taxation while gobbling up individual freedom and liberty in the process.

I love a story Walter E. Williams tells to illustrate this point. He is often asked why he doesn't run for office, and his standard response is, "because no one would vote for me!" He continues on entertaining his potential run... "I would tell you that I've read the Constitution, I know what it says the role of Federal government is, and I don't believe it should be doing about 90% of what it's doing! So, when you elect me, I promise I won't be bringing home the bacon and I won't be voting for things the government has no business funding." He goes on to ask, "how many votes do you imagine I would get with such a message?"

Williams point is, whether Republican or Democrat, we vote for the candidate who is going to do the most for us personally, and this has become the way things are done. We can't seem to break this nasty cycle because it has become the way we measure a "good" candidate... what are they going to do for ME? The more they do, the bigger the Federal Leviathan becomes and the worse the problem gets. Obviously, it's going to take society thinking of Government in a different dynamic, which it's currently unwilling to do.

No, the real problem is that we have people like Williams who think America would function better if we ran like Somalia with a government that doesn't do anything.

Me, I like having function roads and police departments and fire departments and clean water.

And I like the fact that my insurance company can't call my cancer a "Pre-existing condition" if I get sick.

Used to be, Republicans like Ike and Nixon understood the role of government to do good things. I would even go so far as to say Reagan did.

But now the GOP is dominated by various religious, libertarian and gun nuts who seem to think every man for himself is a good thing.

And they wonder why they can't win elections?

But you are an economic moron who doesn't understand how free market capitalism works or how to grow the economy. So you're never going to have the Utopia you're dreaming of. You are what Marx called a "useful idiot" because you have bought the propaganda.

I like having functioning roads and police/fire departments too. These are things the people have always handled locally because local people know local needs. Folks in my state can vote to raise state taxes to pay for better roads. People in my community can vote to increase taxes to pay for more police/fire service. It's simply NOT the Constitutional responsibility of the FEDERAL government, nor should it be, nor do I want it to be.

With your insurance comment, what you like is to be able to screw the insurance carrier and make other people pay for your problems. The reason that won't work will become increasingly more apparent as you watch health care become more and more rationed by central government and taken out of your hands entirely. But being that you are an economic illiterate and useful idiot, you didn't want to listen, so now the cake's in the oven.

 

[JoeB131]

[
With your insurance comment, what you like is to be able to screw the insurance carrier and make other people pay for your problems. The reason that won't work will become increasingly more apparent as you watch health care become more and more rationed by central government and taken out of your hands entirely. But being that you are an economic illiterate and useful idiot, you didn't want to listen, so now the cake's in the oven.

Guy, most of the world has single payer and they have better health care than we do and they spend less.

the sooner we get there, the better.

In the mean time, limiting the mendacity in the glass offices is a good starting point.

YOu know what, all your conservative horseshit. We tried it your way. We got the Recession of 2008.

When I was growing up, my parents used to say Democrats gave us wars and Republicans gave us Recessions.

Now REpublicans give us both.

And no good reason to ever vote for them again.

We're done with you. Good riddance. Enjoy political oblivion and say hi the the Whigs for me.

 

[Redfish]

[
With your insurance comment, what you like is to be able to screw the insurance carrier and make other people pay for your problems. The reason that won't work will become increasingly more apparent as you watch health care become more and more rationed by central government and taken out of your hands entirely. But being that you are an economic illiterate and useful idiot, you didn't want to listen, so now the cake's in the oven.

Guy, most of the world has single payer and they have better health care than we do and they spend less.

the sooner we get there, the better.

In the mean time, limiting the mendacity in the glass offices is a good starting point.

YOu know what, all your conservative horseshit. We tried it your way. We got the Recession of 2008.

When I was growing up, my parents used to say Democrats gave us wars and Republicans gave us Recessions.

Now REpublicans give us both.

And no good reason to ever vote for them again.

We're done with you. Good riddance. Enjoy political oblivion and say hi the the Whigs for me.

Sorry, joey boy. But you are in an ever shrinking minority. Most of america has learned what you refuse to learn. liberalism, socialism, marxism, collectivism, communism DO NOT WORK, NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL.

you had your chance with obama and he failed. Barry has destroyed the dem party for the next 50 years----------------and the country thanks you.

 

[Redfish]

[
With your insurance comment, what you like is to be able to screw the insurance carrier and make other people pay for your problems. The reason that won't work will become increasingly more apparent as you watch health care become more and more rationed by central government and taken out of your hands entirely. But being that you are an economic illiterate and useful idiot, you didn't want to listen, so now the cake's in the oven.

Guy, most of the world has single payer and they have better health care than we do and they spend less.

the sooner we get there, the better.

In the mean time, limiting the mendacity in the glass offices is a good starting point.

YOu know what, all your conservative horseshit. We tried it your way. We got the Recession of 2008.

When I was growing up, my parents used to say Democrats gave us wars and Republicans gave us Recessions.

Now REpublicans give us both.

And no good reason to ever vote for them again.

We're done with you. Good riddance. Enjoy political oblivion and say hi the the Whigs for me.

on your lie about single payer in other countries working. it doesn't, the UK and Canada are moving away from their very expensive, ineffective systems. The british people hate the NHS because it does not provide timely or quality medical care.

 

[Boss]

I don't like the term "single payer" because it's dishonest. What it actually means is we all pay. It should be called "all payer" instead. We're all going to be paying for every hypochondriac and freeloader who thinks the doctor's office is their personal drug dealer. Now that pot is being legalized, we'll also be paying for every pot head's stash. People with legitimate health problems will be neglected and forced onto waiting lists for surgeries and treatments because of a massive shortage of medical professionals who no longer have a monetary motivation for working in their field. Meanwhile, since we're all paying through the government, the medical providers will continue to raise prices because there is no free market consumer anymore to control prices through competition.

I love how the proponents all run to the examples of "other countries" because that's the meme they've been trained to repeat like mindless zombies. The thing is, those "other countries" don't have a consumer-driven society with constitutional rights and freedom of choice. The people are accustomed to being content with whatever morsels are doled out by government and being thankful for it. If the government says you have to wait 2 years to have cancer surgery, that's just life. If they say you're too old for a pacemaker, oh well. They are also not accustomed to not being able to pick up the phone and call 1-800-LAWSUIT and be entitled to compensation for injuries or misdiagnosis. We're kind of spoiled to those things because we live in America, but we'll have to get used to the new way things are done.

Meanwhile, in addition to all the new taxes we'll be having to pay in order to pay off our debts, we'll also be footing the bill for this massive government health program that will be far more inefficient and bureaucratically bloated than anything we've ever known before. But this is what happens when you let the insane run the asylum.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Which means instead of tripling, like it did under Reagan, he got it under control.

But he lied about a blow job. That was the important thing.

Again, you are proven wrong. Your statement was that Clinton balanced the budget. As the evidence clearly shows, he did not. Now you want to claim he "got it under control" but that is also a lie. Congress voted to count the Social Security trust fund as part of the general fund, so Clinton spent that money and still ran a $200 billion+ deficit every year. At the end of his 8 years, we were $1.2 trillion MORE in debt, plus we had spent most of the money in the Social Security trust fund.

Congress has always counted the Social Security Trust fund as part of the balance.

The point being that we were taking in more money than we were spending. And if Bush hadn't come along and given a huge tax cut to the rich while putting a war on a credit card, we'd probably be fiscally solvent by now.

Joe, you do realize that tax receipts GREW during the Bush presidency, right? Even Obama knows this - although he told you otherwise.