What do liberals want the US to be?

[Listening]

HERE IS another post that goes in to it from Iriemon:

Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

+++

Here' *my* proof that there was in fact a surplus:

The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan office that keeps budget records for Congress. You can see CBO reports on historical actual budget information in its website here:

The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 Congressional Budget Office

Table 1 reports summary budget information, including two measures of the deficit (or surplus). "Total" includes SS surplus tax receipts (and has commonly been used by the Bush administration to measure deficits), and "on-budget" does not (and is therefore the more accurate measure, IMO, since SS taxes are not supposed to be used for general Govt expenditures). Because SS taxes have produced a surplus (about $200 billion) the last couple years, the on-budget surplus is lower than the "total" surplus (and conversely, the on-budget deficit is greater than the "total" deficit).

Follow the table down to the year "2000" and in the third column you can find that the "on-budget" surplus for 2000 was $86.4 billion. In 1999, there was a $1.9 billion surplus. You can see in the next column that the "total" surplus figures are even larger.

The U.S. budget does not include every expenditure -- for example, it has (prior to Obama taking office excludes "non-permanent" expenditures like the Iraq war. By excluding such things, the Bush administration was able to make the deficits look less severe. In 2006 and 2007, for example, the Bush administration claimed deficits of significantly less than $500 billion, while the US Govt actually had to borrow more than $500 billion in each of those years.

So looking at actual borrowing of the US Govt gives another picture of the deficit. For example, last year, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars, which is one way of measuring the size of the deficit Obama inhereted.

Did Clinton have a surplus using this measurement?

You can access the total debt of the US Govt from the Treasury Department's website, here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Total debt of the US Government:

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

The total debt of the US Govt decreased by $114 billion during 2000, Clinton's last year in office.

Showing a true surplus.

+++

So to DiamondDave or anyone else who claims the surplus under Clinton was a "myth," here's a chance to present the "proof" that has been shown "over and over and over" that this surplus is a just a "myth".

So, I looked at the referenced sites and there was nothing (that I could see) in Table 1 or any other table that gave data prior to 2008. Can you clarify ?

The second site had a search application that did not work for the dates I put in. At that, it only went back to 1993, so there is no way to get the history of Reagan and Bush.

So how does not having the claimed data (I admit it might be there...I'll need better directions) give anyone what it needs to disprove the myth ?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

States have historically left 'people' out in the cold. The federal government has stepped in because of the neglect of states

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."
America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.
Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

Well, you've got your cart and horse, and head and ass, mixed up again. Gerrymandering came first, then the primaries, then the house elections. Good dog. Sit, roll over, stay.

This is just one insane example, but also an explanation for how NC got so fucked up in the first place.

 

[Listening]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."
America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.
Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Doesn't even know what gerrymandering entails and that Senate seats are statewide.

D'Oh!

I would agree....Idiot alert !

Doesn't know sarcasm when it is pretty obvious.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Doesn't even know what gerrymandering entails and that Senate seats are statewide.

D'Oh!

I would agree....Idiot alert !

Doesn't know sarcasm when it is pretty obvious.

 

[Listening]

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Doesn't even know what gerrymandering entails and that Senate seats are statewide.

D'Oh!

I would agree....Idiot alert !

Doesn't know sarcasm when it is pretty obvious.

Whoops....another alert !

 

[kaz]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

that statement makes you appear to be a troglodyte

In libertarianism, anyone can live in a palace. In government, you live in the cave and just vicariously live through politicians who control everyone else.

 

[kaz]

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.

See how easy this is?

No

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

 

[kaz]

Strawman

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

I understand why people today in greater numbers than any in recent memory would ;'hate' government. People mistakenly transfer the crap of politicians onto government itself. One man like a Ted Cruz (example) can grind government to a halt. Doesn't make government bad at all.

So you blame government on a guy who thinks we have too much of it? That's just whacked.

 

[kaz]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

Have you ever lived under an anarchy? Just askin'.

No, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[rightwinger]

The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.

See how easy this is?

No

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

 

[Listening]

No

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

Like Kaz said.....who cares what was used to justify it ?

GWB was an idiot....like you.

 

[kaz]

No

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

And how does that relate to the point that Clinton had no actual surplus, just a political lie that there was a surplus.

Only a liberal would call government spending more than it takes in a "surplus." While you simultaneously lie there is a "Social Security Trust Fund." Liberalism is the ability to believe two contradictory beliefs simultaneously in your mind. Sick stuff. That's why liberalism is a religion, not a political ideology. You have to have faith, logic and empirical data don't get you there.

 

[kaz]

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

Like Kaz said.....who cares what was used to justify it ?

GWB was an idiot....like you.

Yes, the guy spent other people's money like water. He lived his life under his daddy's wing, he had no concept that he was spending money earned by someone else.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

Like Kaz said.....who cares what was used to justify it ?

GWB was an idiot....like you.

Well GW has a good heart. And he's a long way from being an idiot. He is not a perfect man, thus he was not a perfect President. The simple fact is that the powers that be, whoever that represents, want the US Bankrupted.

And that is done... the US is stone cold bankrupt, meaning that it now owes in debt, more than it can ever hope to sustain.

 

[kaz]

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

Why would I give a shit what W said?

Surplus seemed to exist when it was used to justify a tax cut wasn't it?

Like Kaz said.....who cares what was used to justify it ?

GWB was an idiot....like you.

Well GW has a good heart. And he's a long way from being an idiot. He is not a perfect man, thus he was not a perfect President. The simple fact is that the powers that be, whoever that represents, want the US Bankrupted.

And that is done... the US is stone cold bankrupt, meaning that it now owes in debt, more than it can ever hope to sustain.

Yes, we are bankrupt, and W played a big part in that.

 

[Dante]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Doesn't even know what gerrymandering entails and that Senate seats are statewide.

D'Oh!

I would agree....Idiot alert !

Doesn't know sarcasm when it is pretty obvious.

wow! didn't it was possible to sound so lame with sarcasm.

learn something new every day here

 

[Dante]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

that statement makes you appear to be a troglodyte

In libertarianism, anyone can live in a palace. In government, you live in the cave and just vicariously live through politicians who control everyone else.

I'm speechless

 

[Dante]

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

I understand why people today in greater numbers than any in recent memory would ;'hate' government. People mistakenly transfer the crap of politicians onto government itself. One man like a Ted Cruz (example) can grind government to a halt. Doesn't make government bad at all.

So you blame government on a guy who thinks we have too much of it? That's just whacked.

It wasn't that he said we had too much government, it's that he said government was the problem.
It is possible to have big government that isn't the problem.

 

[kaz]

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

I understand why people today in greater numbers than any in recent memory would ;'hate' government. People mistakenly transfer the crap of politicians onto government itself. One man like a Ted Cruz (example) can grind government to a halt. Doesn't make government bad at all.

So you blame government on a guy who thinks we have too much of it? That's just whacked.

It wasn't that he said we had too much government, it's that he said government was the problem.
It is possible to have big government that isn't the problem.

No, that is not possible. The more government you have, the more layers of unaccountability you have, which because of human nature leads to corruption and indifference in our rulers. Government works only when it's small and as local as possible and it only does that which we cannot do on our own, like manage limited resources and build roads and that sort of thing. No government has or will ever confiscate and redistribute wealth without becoming corrupt.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

I understand why people today in greater numbers than any in recent memory would ;'hate' government. People mistakenly transfer the crap of politicians onto government itself. One man like a Ted Cruz (example) can grind government to a halt. Doesn't make government bad at all.

So you blame government on a guy who thinks we have too much of it? That's just whacked.

It wasn't that he said we had too much government, it's that he said government was the problem.
It is possible to have big government that isn't the problem.

No... that is literally NOT possible.

Understand: The Problem is the THREAT TO FREEDOM.

There is no greater threat to freedom, than the power of government. the bigger the government, the greater the power of the government, the greater the threat from government.

It's not like it's a debatable point.