Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[bripat9643]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

My take on your post is that you're blowing hot gas out your ass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

My take on your post is that you're blowing hot gas out your ass.

If you weren't so interested in the ass of a 67 year old man, you wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Kosh]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

And thus showing that the far left mantra of "infrastructure" is just a religious chant..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Um, the entire phrase is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Do you know the DoI is not law, nor does it have the power of law. Also, the Preamble to the COTUS has no power of law, but it does describe a vision, and a mission statement to those who would protect and defend the Constitution and make Jefferson's vision a reality.

Nothing here changes the fact that the left refuses to understand that this refers to equity in the eyes of the law, not equity is income, living arrangements, health care and internet access.

Our federal Congress is delegated the power to Tax, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. And, not Only that, we also have a Commerce Clause.

And nothing in YOUR post changes the fact that the left refuses to understand that this {all men are created equal] refers to equity in the eyes of the law, not equity is income, living arrangements, health care and internet access.
You guys really need to try harder.

socialism can claim equality due that social concept, not that capital concept. you may recognize it when the right uses it to advocate for "social justice" for the wealthiest, regarding equality in Taxation.

Another swing, another miss.
Keep trying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats are just trying to save the country from disastrous GOP policies.

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

And thus showing that the far left mantra of "infrastructure" is just a religious chant..

Wow, more evidence that Kosh is one of the dumber members of the Crazy New Right, and seriously mentally challenged for his lead by M14 shooter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats are just trying to save the country from disastrous GOP policies.

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We've been investing in infrastructure, science and r&d since the early 19th century. During the 50's, 60's and 70's we spent far more on them. They never caused anything close to the debt we're going through now. Does that tell you something?

It tells me our priorities are wrong. Infrastructure and commerce are interrelated - especially when the products purchased to build, repair or maintain bridges, overpasses, roads, pipelines, canals, levees, power lines, public transportation, rail roads, runways, piers, etc. are purchased from American companies using American labor.

And yet by your own examples the far left is against infrastructure as they continue to deny Keystone being finished.

Thus if you want infrastructure do NOT vote far left, voting far left is never the answer..

No evidence has been presented to prove the approval of the Keystone XL will benefit the United States. If you have some, please post it.

The facts, as I understand them, suggest the pipeline will benefit Canadian private sector interests and private sector interests which operate refiners in Texas. They also put at risk, in the opinion of land owners in Nebraska, their lifestyle, and tar sand oils are environmental risky.

If I'm wrong provide evidence. I'd much prefer pipelines of clean water be built to provide water to the west for irrigation of crops. Same argument for jobs, long term and short term, but a greater benefit to the nation, and maybe the world.

And thus showing that the far left mantra of "infrastructure" is just a religious chant..

Lol, lol, lol

You drive on roads? Right? You drive across bridges? Right??? You pay taxes for it, right? Well, what's wrong with keeping these things up to date??? right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

Not even remotely close. The Republican increase proposal was just marginally less than the Democrats. The point is, you liars call an increase a cut because that's what you are, liars.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Democrats are just trying to save the country from disastrous GOP policies.

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

Slaves get paid?

You mean slaves get paid the wages they agreed to by contract and can quit anytime?

Do you know what "slave" means?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

Not even remotely close. The Republican increase proposal was just marginally less than the Democrats. The point is, you liars call an increase a cut because that's what you are, liars.

Evidence is missing. My post was speculation, yours is an allegation - Prove it!

 

[bripat9643]

Democrats are just trying to save the country from disastrous GOP policies.

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

Since corporations can't do that, you're question is idiotic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats are just trying to save the country from disastrous GOP policies.

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

Since corporations can't do that, you're question is idiotic.

What do you think they did in the 19th century into the 20th? Or for that matter the sweet shops of China, etc?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

Not even remotely close. The Republican increase proposal was just marginally less than the Democrats. The point is, you liars call an increase a cut because that's what you are, liars.

Evidence is missing. My post was speculation, yours is an allegation - Prove it!

Bullshit. If you don't know about the budget battle of 1995 because you were high on pot, in a coma, or just plain unplugged from the world, it's not my job to be your link slave and alleviate your ignorance. The person I was actually addressing knows what I'm talking about, and that's all I care about.

You can fall off the face of the earth for all I care.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh look... an outright lie from a mindless partisan bigot.
Who would have guessed?

Oh look, an outright personal attack from a mindless partisan.

Sorry that the truth hurts - but, the truth it remains.
Now tell us again why it is you support state-enforced involuntary servitude..

Why do you support the corporate kind that can treat its workers as nothing more than slaves?

Since corporations can't do that, you're question is idiotic.

What do you think they did in the 19th century into the 20th? Or for that matter the sweet shops of China, etc?

They paid people a days wages for a days work. That isn't slavery.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet I bet these same liberals would never run their personal finances the way Obama and Congressional Democrats have been running federal finances.

It's insane that any Republican leader proposes very modest spending cuts, Democrats engage in the most reckless, dishonest demagoguery. Just look at the absurd commercials they ran about the Ryan Budget in 2012. That budget merely called for slowing the growth of spending, yet Democrats ran commercials showing a granny in a wheelchair being rolled over a cliff.

It's just irresponsible and dishonest, and this demagoguery is proving to be a major roadblock to returning to fiscal sanity.

It reminds me of the 1990's when the Republicans' proposed increase to the federal school lunch program was less than the Democrats' proposed increase, so they sounded the alarm, shrill and recurring, that Republicans were CUTTING lunches for children.

There isn't an honest person among them.

You're not lying by omission, are you? My take on your post is that the cost to provide the same lunch menu had increased 5-fold, and the Republicans wanted to raise the the budged of the school lunch program 2-fold.

Not even remotely close. The Republican increase proposal was just marginally less than the Democrats. The point is, you liars call an increase a cut because that's what you are, liars.

Evidence is missing. My post was speculation, yours is an allegation - Prove it!

Bullshit. If you don't know about the budget battle of 1995 because you were high on pot, in a coma, or just plain unplugged from the world, it's not my job to be your link slave and alleviate your ignorance. The person I was actually addressing knows what I'm talking about, and that's all I care about.

You can fall off the face of the earth for all I care.

Sorry to so upset you, it seems you have emotional problems, likely compounded by a seething hate and a dead end job.

The so-called budget battle was a battle of values, Clinton cared for seniors and Gingrich, aka, the Sheriff of Nottingham and his band of callous conservative friends didn't. Of note, the majority in the H. of Rep. wanted to charge seniors more for medicare but didn't pony up cuts to their own salary and benefits - much like the Boehner Bandits today.

Who can forget the government shutdown and The Newt's meltdown when made to sit in the back of Air Force One and exit out the rear. The result was Clinton's reelection and The Newt's exit from elected office.

 

[AdvancingTime]

As the National Debt crossed over the 18 trillion dollars mark we continue to hear from the media how robust economic growth has helped push the U.S. budget deficit down to the lowest level since 2008. Claims of the sharpest turnaround in the government’s fiscal position in at least 46 years are targeted at reassuring American that Washington has got our back.

The ugly truth many people choose to ignore is that starting in 2017 entitlements will become the driving force and carry the deficit in to nosebleed territory. Any claim that the Obama administration has the budget deficit back under control is a total lie. The article below provides clarification on this subject.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/11/deficit-poised-to-top-18-trillion.html

 

[AdvancingTime]

Below is a post that acts as a primer that looks at how the debt America has must be laid at the feet of each of us. It will make anyone who reads it think twice before saying that each 3 to 13 billion dollar program government considers should be passed. At one time a billion dollars was a lot of money and it still is.

Most people that haven't given government debt much thought and might not think about how much money a billion dollars is considering how modern media and politicians throw the "B" word around. On several occasions I have heard both Washington politicians and the news media accidentally confuse a billion dollars with its much smaller sister the million marker.

This drives me crazy. With a billion dollars being a thousand time larger this confusion is undefendable. The article below is a primmer on the ugly math of our debt delving into how much it cost each and every American when the government spends a billion dollar.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/10/an-ugly-math-primer-on-american-debt.html

 

[Wry Catcher]

You've defined the problem, sort of, now what are the alternatives? Please factor in the cost benefit to "entitlement" cuts as well as the consequences to our nations citizens, and the impact of the cuts on state and local government.

It's easy to say, "ain't it awful". It's not so easy building a matrix to determine outcomes, and more difficult to predict the unintended consequences of a program of austerity.

In one respect the solution is simple: raise taxes and fees and reduce spending. The devil of course is in the details, and the details include the ideology of bleeding heart liberals vis a vis Callous Conservatives, further complicated by the usual assortment of demagogues and charlatans (think Ted Cruz) further clouding the issue.