What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'd like to send some people there. Too bad Obama ended the NASA space program. We'll never know what we missed out on.

Uhh, OK. Obama ended the NASA space program.

Date: April 30 +
Time: 12:22 p.m. EDT
Mission: SpaceX
Launch Vehicle: Falcon 9/Dragon
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
Launch Pad: Space Launch Complex 40
Description: The Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station. Pending completion of final safety reviews, testing and verification, NASA has agreed to allow SpaceX to send its Dragon spacecraft to rendezvous with the station in a single flight.

Guess he's restarting it April 30th.
NASA - NASA's Consolidated Launch Schedule


Got it. Whatever your cult says, it must be true.

Obama said it and he damn sure isn't my cult. No koolaid for me, thanks.

Wow he said it.

I'd only ask that you be even more vague

Thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

and if conservatives made government smaller when they were in power, you might have an argument.

You see, here's my biggest problem with so-called "conservatives". they actually create more of the government dependency they so decry.

Once upon a time, in the struggle between the working guy and the rich guy, we had "conservatives" and "Republicans" who realized that a working guy bringing home his fair share of the profits of an enterprise was what limited government. If you were on Welfare, or Foodstamps, it was because you were lazy.

That was before the Mr. Potter Wing of the GOP (you know, the one trying to foist Mitt Romney as the nominee right now) took over. Bust that union. Put in "Right to Work" and "At Will" employment laws that make people afraid to lose their jobs so they'll put up with nearly anything. Sign a few ludicrous trade treaties with countries that use child labor and pay slave wages can undermine out manufacturing.

If there are any jobs left, they'll be McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza - Minimum wage, no benefits.

So not surprisingly, 40% of households on Food Stamps actually have jobs. Just not jobs that pay enough to put food on the table. And the same can be said of those who get Section 8 housing or Medicaid.

So you work 40 hours a week for a boss who will try to cheat you at every oppurtunity, vs. simply getting what you need by voting for a Democrat every four years?

A middle class has been the firewall between America and the kind of European Socialism you all decry.... and who tore it down?

 

[editec]

If your debate with the other is frustrating you?

Guess what?

You just lost the debate.

 

[Full-Auto]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

and if conservatives made government smaller when they were in power, you might have an argument.

You see, here's my biggest problem with so-called "conservatives". they actually create more of the government dependency they so decry.

Once upon a time, in the struggle between the working guy and the rich guy, we had "conservatives" and "Republicans" who realized that a working guy bringing home his fair share of the profits of an enterprise was what limited government. If you were on Welfare, or Foodstamps, it was because you were lazy.

That was before the Mr. Potter Wing of the GOP (you know, the one trying to foist Mitt Romney as the nominee right now) took over. Bust that union. Put in "Right to Work" and "At Will" employment laws that make people afraid to lose their jobs so they'll put up with nearly anything. Sign a few ludicrous trade treaties with countries that use child labor and pay slave wages can undermine out manufacturing.

If there are any jobs left, they'll be McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza - Minimum wage, no benefits.

So not surprisingly, 40% of households on Food Stamps actually have jobs. Just not jobs that pay enough to put food on the table. And the same can be said of those who get Section 8 housing or Medicaid.

So you work 40 hours a week for a boss who will try to cheat you at every oppurtunity, vs. simply getting what you need by voting for a Democrat every four years?

A middle class has been the firewall between America and the kind of European Socialism you all decry.... and who tore it down?

LOL Democrats destroyed SS by putting it in the general fund. they themselves created the marriage penalty. Just glancing at your post I FOUND IT EASY to destroy your notions of differences between the parties.

 

[JoeB131]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

and if conservatives made government smaller when they were in power, you might have an argument.

You see, here's my biggest problem with so-called "conservatives". they actually create more of the government dependency they so decry.

Once upon a time, in the struggle between the working guy and the rich guy, we had "conservatives" and "Republicans" who realized that a working guy bringing home his fair share of the profits of an enterprise was what limited government. If you were on Welfare, or Foodstamps, it was because you were lazy.

That was before the Mr. Potter Wing of the GOP (you know, the one trying to foist Mitt Romney as the nominee right now) took over. Bust that union. Put in "Right to Work" and "At Will" employment laws that make people afraid to lose their jobs so they'll put up with nearly anything. Sign a few ludicrous trade treaties with countries that use child labor and pay slave wages can undermine out manufacturing.

If there are any jobs left, they'll be McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza - Minimum wage, no benefits.

So not surprisingly, 40% of households on Food Stamps actually have jobs. Just not jobs that pay enough to put food on the table. And the same can be said of those who get Section 8 housing or Medicaid.

So you work 40 hours a week for a boss who will try to cheat you at every oppurtunity, vs. simply getting what you need by voting for a Democrat every four years?

A middle class has been the firewall between America and the kind of European Socialism you all decry.... and who tore it down?

LOL Democrats destroyed SS by putting it in the general fund. they themselves created the marriage penalty. Just glancing at your post I FOUND IT EASY to destroy your notions of differences between the parties.

Well, actually, you didn't. But it strikes me that you are incapble of comprehending the reasoning here.

First, both parties supported the two listed stupidities you mentioned. Hell, Clinton was posting surpluses, Bush was the guy who decided to expend the SS Trust fund by giving it to rich people....

Second, what does that have to do with anything I said? When you undermine THE MIDDLE CLASS, you create government dependency. More government dependency, more government. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[Full-Auto]

and if conservatives made government smaller when they were in power, you might have an argument.

You see, here's my biggest problem with so-called "conservatives". they actually create more of the government dependency they so decry.

Once upon a time, in the struggle between the working guy and the rich guy, we had "conservatives" and "Republicans" who realized that a working guy bringing home his fair share of the profits of an enterprise was what limited government. If you were on Welfare, or Foodstamps, it was because you were lazy.

That was before the Mr. Potter Wing of the GOP (you know, the one trying to foist Mitt Romney as the nominee right now) took over. Bust that union. Put in "Right to Work" and "At Will" employment laws that make people afraid to lose their jobs so they'll put up with nearly anything. Sign a few ludicrous trade treaties with countries that use child labor and pay slave wages can undermine out manufacturing.

If there are any jobs left, they'll be McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza - Minimum wage, no benefits.

So not surprisingly, 40% of households on Food Stamps actually have jobs. Just not jobs that pay enough to put food on the table. And the same can be said of those who get Section 8 housing or Medicaid.

So you work 40 hours a week for a boss who will try to cheat you at every oppurtunity, vs. simply getting what you need by voting for a Democrat every four years?

A middle class has been the firewall between America and the kind of European Socialism you all decry.... and who tore it down?

LOL Democrats destroyed SS by putting it in the general fund. they themselves created the marriage penalty. Just glancing at your post I FOUND IT EASY to destroy your notions of differences between the parties.

Well, actually, you didn't. But it strikes me that you are incapble of comprehending the reasoning here.

First, both parties supported the two listed stupidities you mentioned. Hell, Clinton was posting surpluses, Bush was the guy who decided to expend the SS Trust fund by giving it to rich people....

Second, what does that have to do with anything I said? When you undermine THE MIDDLE CLASS, you create government dependency. More government dependency, more government. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Oh jesus the surplus lie again.

Here stupid show the surplus...............


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual



If you want a civil discussion donrt be a little lying *****.,

 

[Bfgrn]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

and if conservatives made government smaller when they were in power, you might have an argument.

You see, here's my biggest problem with so-called "conservatives". they actually create more of the government dependency they so decry.

Once upon a time, in the struggle between the working guy and the rich guy, we had "conservatives" and "Republicans" who realized that a working guy bringing home his fair share of the profits of an enterprise was what limited government. If you were on Welfare, or Foodstamps, it was because you were lazy.

That was before the Mr. Potter Wing of the GOP (you know, the one trying to foist Mitt Romney as the nominee right now) took over. Bust that union. Put in "Right to Work" and "At Will" employment laws that make people afraid to lose their jobs so they'll put up with nearly anything. Sign a few ludicrous trade treaties with countries that use child labor and pay slave wages can undermine out manufacturing.

If there are any jobs left, they'll be McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza - Minimum wage, no benefits.

So not surprisingly, 40% of households on Food Stamps actually have jobs. Just not jobs that pay enough to put food on the table. And the same can be said of those who get Section 8 housing or Medicaid.

So you work 40 hours a week for a boss who will try to cheat you at every oppurtunity, vs. simply getting what you need by voting for a Democrat every four years?

A middle class has been the firewall between America and the kind of European Socialism you all decry.... and who tore it down?

LOL Democrats destroyed SS by putting it in the general fund. they themselves created the marriage penalty. Just glancing at your post I FOUND IT EASY to destroy your notions of differences between the parties.

BULLSHIT!

Looting Social Security
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.


Paul Craig Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL Democrats destroyed SS by putting it in the general fund. they themselves created the marriage penalty. Just glancing at your post I FOUND IT EASY to destroy your notions of differences between the parties.

Well, actually, you didn't. But it strikes me that you are incapble of comprehending the reasoning here.

First, both parties supported the two listed stupidities you mentioned. Hell, Clinton was posting surpluses, Bush was the guy who decided to expend the SS Trust fund by giving it to rich people....

Second, what does that have to do with anything I said? When you undermine THE MIDDLE CLASS, you create government dependency. More government dependency, more government. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Oh jesus the surplus lie again.

Here stupid show the surplus...............

If you want a civil discussion donrt be a little lying *****.,

Guy, fact ws, under Clinton, the government was taking in more money than it was spending. Period. Doesn't erase the 7 trillion run up in the previous 14 years, which Clinton had a hand in, but there were surpluses.

So now that we are done with your boring attempts at diversion- answer the original point.

If you let the rich destroy the middle class, and what used to be the middle class becomes more dependent on government, how do you shrink government?

Case in point. Social Security. Back when Clinton was president, we all hoped that we'd retire on our 401K's. Now two stock market crashes later, we are all damned glad social security is there, aren't we?

You've created more government dependence.

Congratulations.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, actually, you didn't. But it strikes me that you are incapble of comprehending the reasoning here.

First, both parties supported the two listed stupidities you mentioned. Hell, Clinton was posting surpluses, Bush was the guy who decided to expend the SS Trust fund by giving it to rich people....

Second, what does that have to do with anything I said? When you undermine THE MIDDLE CLASS, you create government dependency. More government dependency, more government. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Oh jesus the surplus lie again.

Here stupid show the surplus...............

If you want a civil discussion donrt be a little lying *****.,

Guy, fact ws, under Clinton, the government was taking in more money than it was spending. Period. Doesn't erase the 7 trillion run up in the previous 14 years, which Clinton had a hand in, but there were surpluses.

So now that we are done with your boring attempts at diversion- answer the original point.

If you let the rich destroy the middle class, and what used to be the middle class becomes more dependent on government, how do you shrink government?

Case in point. Social Security. Back when Clinton was president, we all hoped that we'd retire on our 401K's. Now two stock market crashes later, we are all damned glad social security is there, aren't we?

You've created more government dependence.

Congratulations.

Surpluses that you can not demonstrate in the bottom line.

Thanks for playing......................


Take something off the books and I too can create a surplus anywhere.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh jesus the surplus lie again.

Here stupid show the surplus...............

If you want a civil discussion donrt be a little lying *****.,

Guy, fact ws, under Clinton, the government was taking in more money than it was spending. Period. Doesn't erase the 7 trillion run up in the previous 14 years, which Clinton had a hand in, but there were surpluses.

So now that we are done with your boring attempts at diversion- answer the original point.

If you let the rich destroy the middle class, and what used to be the middle class becomes more dependent on government, how do you shrink government?

Case in point. Social Security. Back when Clinton was president, we all hoped that we'd retire on our 401K's. Now two stock market crashes later, we are all damned glad social security is there, aren't we?

You've created more government dependence.

Congratulations.

Surpluses that you can not demonstrate in the bottom line.

Thanks for playing......................

Take something off the books and I too can create a surplus anywhere.

I'm sure you can. But both parties do this, and that wasn't what I was arguing.

I'm not surprised you were too cowardly to address the point.

Since you are obviously not rich, and you keep voting against your own economic interests because you are clinging to your gun and your bible, I'm sure your brain would implode if you ever had to consider the point.

You are voting for the right of rich people to screw you. How is that a smart move again?

 

[Foxfyre]

Guy, fact ws, under Clinton, the government was taking in more money than it was spending. Period. Doesn't erase the 7 trillion run up in the previous 14 years, which Clinton had a hand in, but there were surpluses.

So now that we are done with your boring attempts at diversion- answer the original point.

If you let the rich destroy the middle class, and what used to be the middle class becomes more dependent on government, how do you shrink government?

Case in point. Social Security. Back when Clinton was president, we all hoped that we'd retire on our 401K's. Now two stock market crashes later, we are all damned glad social security is there, aren't we?

You've created more government dependence.

Congratulations.

Surpluses that you can not demonstrate in the bottom line.

Thanks for playing......................

Take something off the books and I too can create a surplus anywhere.

I'm sure you can. But both parties do this, and that wasn't what I was arguing.

I'm not surprised you were too cowardly to address the point.

Since you are obviously not rich, and you keep voting against your own economic interests because you are clinging to your gun and your bible, I'm sure your brain would implode if you ever had to consider the point.

You are voting for the right of rich people to screw you. How is that a smart move again?

And here we see a classic example of changing the subject from something uncomfortable or irrefutable to a separate completely off topic subject with personal insults thrown in.

And this is very frustrating to me

 

[JoeB131]

Surpluses that you can not demonstrate in the bottom line.

Thanks for playing......................

Take something off the books and I too can create a surplus anywhere.

I'm sure you can. But both parties do this, and that wasn't what I was arguing.

I'm not surprised you were too cowardly to address the point.

Since you are obviously not rich, and you keep voting against your own economic interests because you are clinging to your gun and your bible, I'm sure your brain would implode if you ever had to consider the point.

You are voting for the right of rich people to screw you. How is that a smart move again?

And here we see a classic example of changing the subject from something uncomfortable or irrefutable to a separate completely off topic subject with personal insults thrown in.

And this is very frustrating to me

My original response to the OP was right on target. It's your boy Full-Auto who decided that he needed to get of topic whining about Social Security Trust funds.

For the record, I think the government's shell games with funds is a little silly. Always has been. I think it should be one straight up tax to cover everything, then people will realize what they are paying in taxes and question it.

Doesn't get back to my point, at all, though. Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us more dependent on it as Democrats are.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Tea Party has endorsed Ron Paul. And Mitt Romney. And Newt Gingrich. As well as Santorum. They aren't officially supporting anybody. They are supporting a principle and endorsing (and giving their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval) to those who will buy into that principle. All four candidates left standing have.

Supporting Santorum, Gingrich, or Mitt Romney would specifically be a contradiction to your "point c".

to refocus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination and stop the steady erosion of these freedoms.

Moral Statist-type conservatives, while they do adhere to the "hands-off" theory of business and capitalism, do NOT adhere to a philosophy of individual liberty in any other way than financial.

Which is why Rick Santorum is currently advocating a crusade against pornography.

How exactly is a crusade against pornography in keeping with a "focus on individual liberties, unalienable rights, and personal self determination, and stop(ping) the steady erosion of these freedoms.

And that is just one example among many.

 

[Vast LWC]

Carter claimed the priority of the Dept of Energy was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. While he may have given them other responsibilities, all he talked about was our dependence on other countries.

Carter Declares End to Foreign Oil Dependence

All Carter did was combine 3 different agencies into one, as well as some of the duties of several other agencies.

The new agency, which began operations on October 1, 1977, assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and programs of various other agencies.

United States Department of Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He then tasked the agency to look into the energy crisis that was occurring at the time, which was in fact part of their jurisdiction.

Of course, following administrations did not follow up on Carter's direction.

33 Years Later, Carter's Energy Department Still Struggling to Meet Goals

Carter vowed that 1977 would be the last year we we imported that much oil and that we'd drill our own and become independent.

Wow, you've never heard of the war on poverty? Perhaps I stated welfare. We should have a war on that because we have ensured that so many will remain hopelessly dependent on government and never know how to make it on their own.

So, because Carter did what small government fanatics love and made government smaller by combining agencies... The failure of said agency over the 30 years since he left office is now his fault?

Well, that's an... interesting way of looking at things.



And yes, you did say "war on welfare", which is definitely not the same thing as "war on poverty".

 

[Vast LWC]

I'd like to send some people there. Too bad Obama ended the NASA space program. We'll never know what we missed out on.

And now you're blaming Obama for cutting federal spending?

Man, I'll tell you, this guy can't do anything right, can he?

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you can. But both parties do this, and that wasn't what I was arguing.

I'm not surprised you were too cowardly to address the point.

Since you are obviously not rich, and you keep voting against your own economic interests because you are clinging to your gun and your bible, I'm sure your brain would implode if you ever had to consider the point.

You are voting for the right of rich people to screw you. How is that a smart move again?

And here we see a classic example of changing the subject from something uncomfortable or irrefutable to a separate completely off topic subject with personal insults thrown in.

And this is very frustrating to me

My original response to the OP was right on target. It's your boy Full-Auto who decided that he needed to get of topic whining about Social Security Trust funds.

For the record, I think the government's shell games with funds is a little silly. Always has been. I think it should be one straight up tax to cover everything, then people will realize what they are paying in taxes and question it.

Doesn't get back to my point, at all, though. Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us more dependent on it as Democrats are.

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

 

[Bfgrn]

And here we see a classic example of changing the subject from something uncomfortable or irrefutable to a separate completely off topic subject with personal insults thrown in.

And this is very frustrating to me

My original response to the OP was right on target. It's your boy Full-Auto who decided that he needed to get of topic whining about Social Security Trust funds.

For the record, I think the government's shell games with funds is a little silly. Always has been. I think it should be one straight up tax to cover everything, then people will realize what they are paying in taxes and question it.

Doesn't get back to my point, at all, though. Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us more dependent on it as Democrats are.

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

So, Foxfyre...you're saying that even though trickle down has been the biggest failure in American history, it will work...eventually. Just as soon as the middle class is completely gutted...


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

 

[Foxfyre]

My original response to the OP was right on target. It's your boy Full-Auto who decided that he needed to get of topic whining about Social Security Trust funds.

For the record, I think the government's shell games with funds is a little silly. Always has been. I think it should be one straight up tax to cover everything, then people will realize what they are paying in taxes and question it.

Doesn't get back to my point, at all, though. Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us more dependent on it as Democrats are.

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

So, Foxfyre...you're saying that even though trickle down has been the biggest failure in American history, it will work...eventually. Just as soon as the middle class is completely gutted...


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

No, I am saying what I said, though the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried. What I am saying is that liberals too often argue as you are arguing here--accusing, blaming, demonizing, stating dishonest ridiculous things as fact--and unable to articulate a rationale for any of it.

That is so typical of the average liberal in any kind of discussion or debate, and it is extremely frustrating for those interesting in exploring and discussing a topic.

 

[Bfgrn]

I wasn't blaming you specifically, though you deserved a bit of it,. I was pointing out what frustrates me.

And yes, Republicans are just as guilty of making government bigger and us dependent on it as Democrats are. The only difference is that Republicans tend to do it a bit more slowly - and - Republicans are more likely to be pro business and promote policies that stimulate economic growth rather than inhibit it so the dependency they create is usually not among the nation's poorest and most gullible, It is more often among the nation's more ambitious and opportunistic.

One of the differences (and frustrations) for me in discussing this with liberals, is that they are more likely to not see the distinctions here and/or grant one of these two things as meritorious and the other as evil/greedy/selfish etc. And they more often than not won't be able to articulate an accurate rationale for either.

So, Foxfyre...you're saying that even though trickle down has been the biggest failure in American history, it will work...eventually. Just as soon as the middle class is completely gutted...


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

No, I am saying what I said, though the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried. What I am saying is that liberals too often argue as you are arguing here--accusing, blaming, demonizing, stating dishonest ridiculous things as fact--and unable to articulate a rationale for any of it.

That is so typical of the average liberal in any kind of discussion or debate, and it is extremely frustrating for those interesting in exploring and discussing a topic.

The track record of supply side is a failure...a total and complete failure. You are a typical of the right. You don't know the facts. But you are too self absorbed to care to know truth from myth.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, Foxfyre...you're saying that even though trickle down has been the biggest failure in American history, it will work...eventually. Just as soon as the middle class is completely gutted...


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

No, I am saying what I said, though the track record of supply side is superior in generating economic activity to anything else the government has tried. What I am saying is that liberals too often argue as you are arguing here--accusing, blaming, demonizing, stating dishonest ridiculous things as fact--and unable to articulate a rationale for any of it.

That is so typical of the average liberal in any kind of discussion or debate, and it is extremely frustrating for those interesting in exploring and discussing a topic.

The track record of supply side is a failure...a total and complete failure. You are a typical of the right. You don't know the facts. But you are too self absorbed to care to know truth from myth.

And here you offer the typical argument that I have observed from most of the left. You demonstrate an inability to articulate a rationale for your erroneous 'fact' and don't make any kind of argument without going ad hominem and/or flat out insulting your opponent. Sad. And again frustating to those of us who do enjoy an informed and intelligent argument/discussion/debate.