Who is the smartest liberal?

[elvis]

It's the difference between rhetoric and practice. Conservatives claim to care about the deficit, but spend like drunken sailors when in power, while others actually address the problem head-on (the decline in the deficit in the late 90s comes from the tax increases passed in early part of the decade, first under the moderate George H.W. Bush and then under Clinton).

You're forgetting about the biggest cuts in social programs since the New Deal, which clinton was responsible for. That also contributed to the balanced budget/surplus.

Contributed, sure, but most of the narrowing comes from increased revenue. While the strong economy was a part of that, both the 1990 and 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliations added a large amount of revenue (the 1990 bill added 2.7 percent over the baseline, while the 1993 bill added an additional 3.5 percent).

was the revenue brought in because the percentages increased or because people's incomes were greater?

 

[Polk]

Yeah dont forget the peace dividend

That accounts for a large chunk that the changes to social spending. A trillion dollars over ten years.

 

[Polk]

You're forgetting about the biggest cuts in social programs since the New Deal, which clinton was responsible for. That also contributed to the balanced budget/surplus.

Contributed, sure, but most of the narrowing comes from increased revenue. While the strong economy was a part of that, both the 1990 and 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliations added a large amount of revenue (the 1990 bill added 2.7 percent over the baseline, while the 1993 bill added an additional 3.5 percent).

was the revenue brought in because the percentages increased or because people's incomes were greater?

Those numbers are calculating only the impact of the bill, not increasing income as well.
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You're forgetting about the biggest cuts in social programs since the New Deal, which clinton was responsible for. That also contributed to the balanced budget/surplus.

Contributed, sure, but most of the narrowing comes from increased revenue. While the strong economy was a part of that, both the 1990 and 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliations added a large amount of revenue (the 1990 bill added 2.7 percent over the baseline, while the 1993 bill added an additional 3.5 percent).

was the revenue brought in because the percentages increased or because people's incomes were greater?

You are auguring with someone who will argue until he has moved the goal post sufficiently to claim victory, you are wasting bandwith .

 

[QUENTIN]

Still living? A strong case could be made for Chomsky. Zinn wouldn't be too far behind either. Not only are they titans of intellectual achievement, but the simple amount of knowledge they possess is staggering.

If we go back through history there are many with a claim to the title, of course if you believe in the divinity of Christ then by default he'd have to be it.

 

[Liability]

Still living? A strong case could be made for Chomsky. Zinn wouldn't be too far behind either. Not only are they titans of intellectual achievement, but the simple amount of knowledge they possess is staggering.

If we go back through history there are many with a claim to the title, of course if you believe in the divinity of Christ then by default he'd have to be it.

Chomsky is an asshole.*

Jesus was a conservative.


__________________________
* All "anarchists" are assholes. And that particular asshole is a still living asshole.

 

[mudwhistle]

Doesn't that question create an oxymoron?

No, just a massive problem. I mean, so many candidates....so little time!

Speaking of morons your handle makes me want to piss.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Still living? A strong case could be made for Chomsky. Zinn wouldn't be too far behind either. Not only are they titans of intellectual achievement, but the simple amount of knowledge they possess is staggering.

If we go back through history there are many with a claim to the title, of course if you believe in the divinity of Christ then by default he'd have to be it.

Chomsky is an asshole.*

Jesus was a conservative.


__________________________
* All "anarchists" are assholes. And that particular asshole is a still living asshole.

​

Conservative = keep the status quo.

Liberal = undermine the status quo.

Have you actually read any of the first four books of The New Testament?

Status quo in Israel 2000 years ago = the religious leaders who killed Jesus for questioning their authority.

 

[mudwhistle]

Still living? A strong case could be made for Chomsky. Zinn wouldn't be too far behind either. Not only are they titans of intellectual achievement, but the simple amount of knowledge they possess is staggering.

If we go back through history there are many with a claim to the title, of course if you believe in the divinity of Christ then by default he'd have to be it.

Chomsky is an asshole.*

Jesus was a conservative.


__________________________
* All "anarchists" are assholes. And that particular asshole is a still living asshole.

​

Conservative = keep the status quo.

Liberal = undermine the status quo.

Have you actually read any of the first four books of The New Testament?

Status quo in Israel 2000 years ago = the religious leaders who killed Jesus for questioning their authority.

What if the status-quo is Liberal? Do you become the conservative and I become the liberal?

What a narrow viewpoint you have.

 

[MaggieMae]

So where did he attend school and learn about Climate change? the University of Make Believe. or the same university that taught him how to create the internet.

Interesting. This thread is about intelligence (or not), then someone like this person ^ jumps in and proves what morons Republicans (oops, "conservatives") can be. Thanks for making my day!!

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope he is a straight up socialist. Just ask him.

He was early in his career, but has moved to the right since, including supporting Bush in 2004.

Hitchens is one of those intellectuals who thinks TOO much. He's all over the place.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope sorry intelligence isn't evil nitwit. Neither per se is being a leftist. Moore is an asshat that's discovered there is a lot of money that can be made off of stupid leftists. Obama isn't much if any brighter than most of the people posting on this board, though he may well be the best indoctrinated president in history. And gore is the only American politician stupid enough to believe his own propaganda.

You can have your opinions on Obama and Gore, because to disagree would take a hundred more pages. But I think your analogy for Michael Moore is a bit hypocritical. Can't we say the same of Glenn Beck who has made millions off stupid righties? Moore comes armed with facts which people counter with facts; Beck comes armed with suppositions, misperceptions and of course innuendo, which is much more harmful in my opinion.

 

[Paulie]

There's an oxymoron in the thread title

 

[MaggieMae]

No polk his policies more social welfare spending than ever before while simultaneously fighting a war Doesn't harken back to REagan but to LBJ. That didn't work out too well for LBJ either.

So why do you suppose Bush got reelected if yours is a representative opinion? As for LBJ, we'll never know because he didn't run for a second term. Vietnam may have turned out differently.

 

[MaggieMae]

As did Reagan before him. If you define conservative so narrowly as to only include those who never spent money, then you're defined the term in such a way as to make it meaningless.

Reagan spent money to break the Soviet Union, which, hindsight being 20/20, may not have been the best plan.
Well, actually, fiscally, Bush was more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was a conservative because the Congress stood on his head and forced him to be one. He then took all the credit in the world for balancing the budget.

It's the difference between rhetoric and practice. Conservatives claim to care about the deficit, but spend like drunken sailors when in power, while others actually address the problem head-on (the decline in the deficit in the late 90s comes from the tax increases passed in early part of the decade, first under the moderate George H.W. Bush and then under Clinton).

Exactly. Ironically, I believe it was Nixon who once said that the American people have short memories.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan spent money to break the Soviet Union, which, hindsight being 20/20, may not have been the best plan.
Well, actually, fiscally, Bush was more liberal than Clinton. Clinton was a conservative because the Congress stood on his head and forced him to be one. He then took all the credit in the world for balancing the budget.

It's the difference between rhetoric and practice. Conservatives claim to care about the deficit, but spend like drunken sailors when in power, while others actually address the problem head-on (the decline in the deficit in the late 90s comes from the tax increases passed in early part of the decade, first under the moderate George H.W. Bush and then under Clinton).

You're forgetting about the biggest cuts in social programs since the New Deal, which clinton was responsible for. That also contributed to the balanced budget/surplus.

And that happened only because for the first (and last, apparently) time in God knows how long, the Executive Branch wasn't doing battle with the Legislative Branch by Clinton's second term. Clinton didn't have to face a bunch of lawmakers trying to save their pet projects (cut HIS program, not MINE). They got down to business and just started slicing and dicing. And frankly, I don't recall very many complaints among the general public over less funding for programs or more taxes either. It just worked.

 

[MaggieMae]

Contributed, sure, but most of the narrowing comes from increased revenue. While the strong economy was a part of that, both the 1990 and 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliations added a large amount of revenue (the 1990 bill added 2.7 percent over the baseline, while the 1993 bill added an additional 3.5 percent).

was the revenue brought in because the percentages increased or because people's incomes were greater?

You are auguring with someone who will argue until he has moved the goal post sufficiently to claim victory, you are wasting bandwith .

As have you with your silly interjections. To, er, "intelligent" people (both sides of the debate), it's all quite interesting.

 

[MaggieMae]

Conservative = keep the status quo.

Liberal = undermine the status quo.

Conservative = What if?

Liberal = What is.

 

[WillowTree]

Conservative = keep the status quo.

Liberal = undermine the status quo.

Conservative = What if?

Liberal = What is.

That depends on what "is" is!

 

[Hellokitty]

There's an oxymoron in the thread title