HunterBear71
New member
Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I still believe Olasky provides simplistic and sometimes bizarre social theories. The video is just cool.
What a Horrible Woman
- Thread starter mikal
- Start date
What amazes me about these threads are the hypocritical statements trying to polish ones team.
Saying Obama outspent Bush is true but how does that excuse Bush. Drunk is drunk and one more drink will still get you the same DUI.
So many people vote party line and defend even criminal activity as long as it is their party. A policy of "clean up your own" would go a long way to fixing our woes. It Won't happen Ever because honesty disappears with party lines.
Almost every issue I see used as a surefire sign that someone is from a certain party is ignored at home.
Then those who [beeep] about corruption or spending programs while stuffing their own pockets with proceeds of the programs.
For anyone here trying to make me believe their party is better, well reality has already dis-proven it.
Saying Obama outspent Bush is true but how does that excuse Bush. Drunk is drunk and one more drink will still get you the same DUI.
So many people vote party line and defend even criminal activity as long as it is their party. A policy of "clean up your own" would go a long way to fixing our woes. It Won't happen Ever because honesty disappears with party lines.
Almost every issue I see used as a surefire sign that someone is from a certain party is ignored at home.
Then those who [beeep] about corruption or spending programs while stuffing their own pockets with proceeds of the programs.
For anyone here trying to make me believe their party is better, well reality has already dis-proven it.
Bill B.
New member
pieeyed,
While your statement is true about spending I think you missed the point. Since I think I am the only person who compared spending levels between the two I'll respond.
Nowhere in any of my posts did you see me defend Bush and his spending. I was merely pointing out that our Obama supporter (hunterbear) fully supports all the crazy spending of the current administration while decrying the Bush spending. As you have pointed out again, you cannot have it both ways. Stupid overspending is wrong no mater what party affiliation you claim.
Locally I have voted for Democrats because they were the better candidate. Nationally is very difficult because the political party machine takes over and relaces and personal convictions that person may have. Happens on both sides of the party line.
I can already see the Pelosi/Ried/Obama love machine had a bucket of cold water thrown on it this Tuesday with the election of Brown in Massachusetts. You can already see Dems trying to back away from the punch bowl to clear their heads from the funky juice that has been fueling them for the past few months. Some will walk the plank and sacrifice themselves for the Democratic party, some will not.
While your statement is true about spending I think you missed the point. Since I think I am the only person who compared spending levels between the two I'll respond.
Nowhere in any of my posts did you see me defend Bush and his spending. I was merely pointing out that our Obama supporter (hunterbear) fully supports all the crazy spending of the current administration while decrying the Bush spending. As you have pointed out again, you cannot have it both ways. Stupid overspending is wrong no mater what party affiliation you claim.
Locally I have voted for Democrats because they were the better candidate. Nationally is very difficult because the political party machine takes over and relaces and personal convictions that person may have. Happens on both sides of the party line.
I can already see the Pelosi/Ried/Obama love machine had a bucket of cold water thrown on it this Tuesday with the election of Brown in Massachusetts. You can already see Dems trying to back away from the punch bowl to clear their heads from the funky juice that has been fueling them for the past few months. Some will walk the plank and sacrifice themselves for the Democratic party, some will not.
HunterBear71
New member
Bill, all of your points are valid. However, I've never advocated stupid over spending. I've always said that any social program must be sustainable. When we discussed healthcare, it was my position that reform was necessary but that without a public option costs would not decline and we would end up with a huge entitlement program. I realize that the Brown victory is cause for Republican rejoicing, but lets not get carried away. My criticism of Bush spending is in direct response to conservative criticism of Obama spending. I find such arguments a little hypocritical.
Bill B.
New member
hunterbear,
Eureka! We have found common ground. I'm not happy with you calling me a hypocrit, but I'll let that pass in the light of our newly found agreement.
If we both agree that both Bush and Obama wasted money can we not admit that Obama is poised to waste more than anyone in history? A break in the cycle has to start at sometime with someone. Why not now? Because that's not in the progressive agenda being foisted upon us at this time.
Eureka! We have found common ground. I'm not happy with you calling me a hypocrit, but I'll let that pass in the light of our newly found agreement.
If we both agree that both Bush and Obama wasted money can we not admit that Obama is poised to waste more than anyone in history? A break in the cycle has to start at sometime with someone. Why not now? Because that's not in the progressive agenda being foisted upon us at this time.
NM Leon
New member
You're (mostly) right pieeyed, Bush was Keynesian light and Obama is Keynesian max, but both are Keynesians who believe deficits for revenue negative (big government) programs are okay and that inflation is manageable.
We've had enough history now with the practical application of John Maynard Keynes' economic theories that we should be able to make a judgement. We know that politicians (from both sides) tend to incur debt (deficits) not only in crises (war, great national disasters) or wealth building (revenue enhancing) projects, but more often to finance entitlement and big government programs that are a net drain on the economy.
Unfortunately, the American public in general know almost nothing about economics, not even at a freshman econ 101 level, and buy into the political rhetoric/promises.
How many programs that are revenue negative have been successfully sold to the public as "an investment in our future"? You would think that anyone with the brains of a fence post would know that an "investment" is supposed to show a positive return, but apparently not.
Many conservatives DO understand the problems (ever heard the term RINO?) and still vote more or less along party lines. All too often we have been given the choice of voting to have a 1 gallon bucket or a 55 gal drum of spit poured over our heads (or of not voting at all).
I've often wondered what our country would look like if every citizen were required to vote in national elections, and every ballot was required to list "none of the above" as one of the choices.
We've had enough history now with the practical application of John Maynard Keynes' economic theories that we should be able to make a judgement. We know that politicians (from both sides) tend to incur debt (deficits) not only in crises (war, great national disasters) or wealth building (revenue enhancing) projects, but more often to finance entitlement and big government programs that are a net drain on the economy.
Unfortunately, the American public in general know almost nothing about economics, not even at a freshman econ 101 level, and buy into the political rhetoric/promises.
How many programs that are revenue negative have been successfully sold to the public as "an investment in our future"? You would think that anyone with the brains of a fence post would know that an "investment" is supposed to show a positive return, but apparently not.
Many conservatives DO understand the problems (ever heard the term RINO?) and still vote more or less along party lines. All too often we have been given the choice of voting to have a 1 gallon bucket or a 55 gal drum of spit poured over our heads (or of not voting at all).
I've often wondered what our country would look like if every citizen were required to vote in national elections, and every ballot was required to list "none of the above" as one of the choices.
mikal
New member
" There is danger from all men,the only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty "
John Adams
I have a distrust of all politicians, being they Democrat or Republican, national or regional.
For me, both Parties have become a two headed monster, sharing the same body, with the same goals, power, not public good.
It is up to the electorate to hold them accountable, or they will be accountable only to them selves.