Maybe it's because you guys are just mean spirited bastards who don't want to spend money on the needy. What about the children? The downtrodden? The homeless winos? The birdbrains who are your natural voters? You and ACORN have done a nice job signing up the convicted felons, and now they get nothing? And what about all the rest of the fuckups and losers who vote Democrat? Why do you always trick them into voting Democrat and then just freeze them out? They want to get on the gravy train, too. They want their free goodies! It all just goes to the gov't workers, teachers and academics? It's not FAIR to use a Democrat/kid word.
All you people on the right who think that the Repubs are for lower government spending are wrong. Between 1978 and 2005 federal spending increased by 9.9% under democratic leadership and by 12.1% under republican leadership. In addition, since 1946 the national debt has increased an average of 4.2% while under republican administrations it increased by an average of 36.4%.
Given that neither party is going to be able to actually cut government spending and that government spending actually increases more under republicans than democrats, how can anyone who is for a government as small as possible support the republican ticket? How can anyone who supports fiscal responsibility support the people who have been responsible for accumulating the vast majority of our national debt? Isn't it more fiscally responsible to pay for current programs through tax revenue? Is it responsible to ask our kids and grandkids to shoulder the burden of our profligacy?
Of course, actual data always lags far behind rhetoric in swaying opinion so the people here who get their opinions handed to them by the right wing echo chamber will dismiss the data without bothering to think but there are a few conservatives here who actually think for themselves. How can you support the party which is less fiscally responsible?
"How can you support the party which is less fiscally responsible?"
And the answer is: Because Bill Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. This is reason enough to support the Bush Crime Family and their Capo's.
Or so the right wing shitbags on the radio and this blog would have you believe.
Maybe it's because you guys are just mean spirited bastards who don't want to spend money on the needy. What about the children? The downtrodden? The homeless winos? The birdbrains who are your natural voters? You and ACORN have done a nice job signing up the convicted felons, and now they get nothing? And what about all the rest of the fuckups and losers who vote Democrat? Why do you always trick them into voting Democrat and then just freeze them out? They want to get on the gravy train, too. They want their free goodies! It all just goes to the gov't workers, teachers and academics? It's not FAIR to use a Democrat/kid word.
I don't vote Republican vs Democrat. So the argument over which party has done what over the last thirty years is moot to me.
I also believe some of your numbers are a bit skewed. If you contracted your numbers to 1980 to 2000 I bet they would look a lot different, not to mention the fact that the except for the last two years of the Carter administration the only Democrat to serve as POTUS during those thirty years was Clinton and he was IMO a centrist not a lib. As I've said before I actually voted for him.
George Bush OTOH spends like a lib in conservative clothing. Picking and choosing your data can paint any kind of picture you like.
You also only define leadership as control of the executive branch of government. I would also be interested in seeing what the numbers would say inre to spending levels based on when Congress was controlled by each party.
That said, I am not voting for a Democrat or a Republican. I am voting for who I feel is better for the country and myself between Obama or McCain. This choice could not be clearer. We have a choice between a moderate pretending to be a "true conservative" and an ultra lib trying to pass himself off as a centrist.
Their true colors are unmistakeable, only the real Koolaid drinkers think Obama is a moderate, and McCain with all his faults could not let us "rich" people out of paying our fair share even he wanted to. The Democratic Congress would never allow him to.
-- Modified on 9/15/2008 6:43:48 PM
Wormwood, you are right on the "money". That's probably why that arguement will never be heard on mainstream media outlets. The bigger problem is the open ended deregulation of just about every industry. Look at Fannie May / Freddie Mac, Leehman, etc. They need to be bailed out due to unethical business practices that lead to their demise. What do you think the top brass walks away with? Tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars, while working people lose their pensions, 401Ks, etc. The neo-cons only stay competitve in elections because of wedge issues. Like I give a shit if 2 guys get married. Think about it; what causes divorce more = gay marraige of the hobby? Do we want Johnny Law to really start cracking down on the hobby. That's what I find so funny about this board. All these ultra-conservative, adultering (I'm single, so fuck you), hobby soliciting hypocrites. I need a strong dollar so that when I go to Montreal we have a better exchange rate. That equals more hobby fun. So when hobbiests vote republicain, it's another example of voting against your economic interests.
working people are losing their pensions and 401K's? First, if by some chance a company with a pension files for bankruptcy, their pensions are assumed by the PBGC. The PBGC limits the amount they will protect (I believe it's around $40K a year), which primarily would impact higher wage earners. Second, how do people lose their 401K? They are self-controlled, and individuals can select how they invest. Now if a 401K participant elects to invest 100% of their money in one company, i.e. FNM or FRE, well then too bad. I don't know how many times experts have pounded into people's heads never never never invest more than 10% in one company's stock.
about trying to have a rational discussion with anyone who throws around the word "neocon".
Libs that use the word "neocon" are about as open minded as cons that start off sentences with the words "you're a Great American". lol There really isn't much difference between the two.
Ga Gambler you are a Great American even if Hannity doesn't agree
Look at how pissy the "neo-con" (whoops, I said it again) gets, when being called what he is. It's like the "liberal" label. I wear that like a badge of honor.
What's so funny is all this "... Obama's the most liberal Senator..."
It wouldn't matter who is running, that's what the neo-ultra-close-minded-dumb-shit-kicking-hick conservative would say.
You guys have gotten away with the name calling and labeling long enough. I'm starting the L.W.A. Liberals With Attitudes. I don't "take the high road" because I'm not running for office. Time to start dishing it out.
I noticed you didn't address the adultering part of my earlier comment. Did I hit too close to home? Let's face it, if all the dirty little secrets of all you neo-cons came out, you and your ilk would have a hard time getting elected dog catcher.
If you weren't such a know it all, douche bag you might have noticed that:
1. I am also single, so fuck you too.
2. I am an agnostic, not quite as closed minded as an atheist but close enough for our purposes.
3. I don't give a fuck about gay marriage or any other marriage for that matter.
4. I am not even a Republican, all partisans while not equally mindless, are still mindless.
If you are going to come on this board once or twice every few months you might try reading a few of the posts before you open your mouth.
I just get so pissed off when certain individuals throw out incoherent comments. I guess I have 3 options (1) respond logically (2) punch my fist into the monitor, or (3) ignore and go back to the fun at CNBC. I'll focus on #3.
Number two sounds couter productive. Number three is probably the best option. Of course speaking as the capo di something or other of the RWSAA, I can think of an option number four. If I have to tell you what option four is then you are no brighter than the "certain individuals" that you were speaking of. lol
And just by coincidence, the movie Casino is now playing on one of the local channels here in SoCal.
Both will cost us money. Who gives a f**k if its higher taxes or devalued assets the money will come from the taxpayers. Wake the f**k up.
The economic growth during the Clinton administration shows what can happen when the economy isn't fucked up by greedy assholes who don't give a shit about either the nation or their own descendants.
For the record, some of the stellar performance of the economy during the Clinton years has to go to the republican leadership who managed to suspend their idiotic (although disingenuous) moralism long enough to get some things done.
It's a shame the Fed mismanaged the money supply so badly during that period causing the housing bubble.
for the economic boom of the nineties. IMO The nineties were prosperous in spite of Greenspan not because of him. First he overtightened rates causing the minor recession that cost Bush Sr the election, then he alternatinly over loosened and overtightened rates, but all along he was hailed as a genius. I just don't get it.
Two major bubbles during his tenure and neither could have occurred without the monetary policy being too loose.
That growth was the result of the deregulation of the utilities and other capital intensive areas of the US economy.
I don't think there was that much growth in the utility sector.
Much growth in the financial capital sector, at least much activity, though.
Reducing the deficit (and actually having a budget surplus) freed up a great deal of capital! If the government's not borrowing $400B a year, that's $400B a year more for the rest of us to borrow.
America is run by capitalist in harmony with the state. All political parties serve the interests of the capitalist. There are really no choices here.