Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Bush spent a lot of money. The thing is, that money was spent in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush had 2 years prior to the 9/11 attacks and ran surpluses for both of those years. By contrast, the left's spending is in response to nothing - Obama has been winding down the wars and yet spending triple the money at the same time. So do you see the difference there? That means if you say Bush's spending was "irresponsible" in your own words, then given the Democrats' spending now, shouldn't you be attacking the left here rather than defending them? After all, if running a 500 billion dollar deficit in time of war is irresponsible, how can you justify running a 1,500 billion dollar deficit when the war is winding down?
Obama spent money in response to the economic crisis (Bush signed a few bailout before leaving office). The difference is invading Iraq and Afghanistan (a response to the 9/11 attacks) achieved what exactly? Our economy is doing better than most of our developed peers and we are producing so much gas and oil it caused a glut.
Liberals: The party of tolerance, unless your ideas are different than theirs.
Conservatives: Let the market run the economy, because all their friends own the market.
Hypocrites, every single one. Elizabeth Warren beats up banks and talks about unreasonable student loans, yet charges Harvard 450,000 to teach one class.
Ted Cruz spends years bashing and trying to repeal, yet signs up for Obamacare.
You always hear that buzzword being thrown around by Dems and liberals: progress. I think it's presumptuous to assume everything they do is progress, considering the failure rate of their policies.
Increased taxes: Progress
Abortion: Progress
Unbalanced budgets: Progress
Destroying the coal industry and its jobs: Progress
Wasting money on "green energy" investments with negative returns: Progress.
Gay marriage: Progress
Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens with millions of Americans out of work: Progress
What else would they call it? No one would consider getting their way to be the opposite of progress. If the right banned abortions, they'd call it progress or a synonym of it.
And your bias makes the question impossibly to address. I mean, c'mon, you're first one is 'raise taxes.' That's not a liberal goal; it's the measure necessary to achieve the goal. One of those goals is balancing a budget. They think they solution is to raise taxes to afford all the things they want to spend on; and they means the government. The rights spends to, and for an example of that, look at the Bush administration. Until Obama came along, his presidency was defined by his irresponsible spending.
He was left a recession, a depleted military and then two the need to open two military fronts.
His deficits peaked in 2004 and had dropped down to $161b the last year of the GOP House budget that he signed. The first Pelosi budget the deficit jumped up to the highest ever deficit in the nation's history at $459b and the 2009 budget that Obama signed ballooned the deficit to $1.4t
It has been proven over and over that you can increase revenue through the use of targeted tax cuts. Higher rates do not equal higher revenue because people changes their behavior because of changes in the tax code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
I am no fan of the left or most liberal views.
But why does the right believe the following are good things:
- not allowing people to marry who they want?
- using the tax code to reward their favorites?
- filling up our prisons with people convicted of marijuana possession?
- supporting crony capitalism just as much as liberals do?
Some people on the right believe a traditional structure of marriage is the best thing for society. "Allowing people to marry who they want" opens a whole swath of plural and incestuous possibilities that will not be good for society. Personally I don't care; marry your cousin, marry six wives, whatever, just don't expect benefits from government when you do.
Tax code to reward favorites isn't a left or right thing. It is why we need a flat tax or a consumption tax.
I can't speak for any other state, but there is no one in "prison" for possession of marijuana for personal use. You need a bale strapped to your back before they prosecute.
Crony capitalism is again not left or right. The tax code for business needs a flat standard as well to eliminate carve outs for industries whether it is solar credits or an oil exploration credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I've never understood why someone wouldn't want a living a document in terms of government and nation building.
You don't want a "living" document because words mean things. When 5 people can change the plain meaning of the Constitution or create law out of thin air it renders the document meaningless and you step through the looking glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Except, change has been enacted many times simply by the Supreme Courts ruling. The commerce clause was brought up earlier and it's interpretation has changed with supreme courts in different eras.
And the change has been improper because there is no basis on which 5 unelected judges can create new law. Wickard v. Filburn is the most evil decision of the SCOTUS ever. Kelo v New London was a direct descendant of that horrible ruling.
You always hear that buzzword being thrown around by Dems and liberals: progress. I think it's presumptuous to assume everything they do is progress, considering the failure rate of their policies.
Increased taxes: Progress
Abortion: Progress
Unbalanced budgets: Progress
Destroying the coal industry and its jobs: Progress
Wasting money on "green energy" investments with negative returns: Progress.
Liberals just love twisting right and wrong and putting them in reverse. It's the mantra they have to "change" society so they can control us.
That's a false dichotomy. Unlike the left, the right does not assume that they are good and the left is evil, so the opposite of right wing ideas does not have to be the opposite of progress. It's just a disagreement over how to reach the common good. Assuming your political opponents are heinous evil racist warmongers is the liberal schtick, not conservative.
And the term 'baby killer' is what? The right using logic and reason to prove a point? Get off your high horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
We'd call it fighting crime. Again, you're using a leftist worldview that not everyone shares. We don't view terminating human lives as a social issue, we view it as a criminal one. Turning abortion into an issue of civil liberties is again a liberal schtick, used to avoid the unpleasant reality of killing unborn children. It's the same way they talk about "reproductive rights" and "women's issues" and such, using euphemisms to hide the ugly reality.
How is 'fighting crime,' within the context that you are using it, not still a synonym for progress? If murder was legal, and then it was made legal, that's progress as it takes steps to lower murder rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
That doesn't indicate a bias. It indicates a priority. He sees high taxes as an important issue. People are allowed to prioritize issues without it being a case of being biased.
He listed 'raise taxes' as a liberal goal when that's not really the goal. It's an effect of a goal, but it's not the goal itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Claiming that raising taxes is not a liberal goal is just flat out dumb. When Obama was asked about the laffner curve he stated that generating revenue was not the goal of raising tax rates, fairness was the goal. This directly denies your assertion.
Obama doesn't speak for the entire party. And even so, fairness is a goal of a sorts. Most Democrats believe that raising taxes for the rich will lessen the burden on the poor and middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
It is absolutely laughable to claim that balancing the budget is a liberal goal considering the Democrats have opposed each and every effort to balance the budget. The Democrats have never used additional revenue to pay down the deficit, they have used it to fund more spending. Even Clinton's famous surpluses were found to be achieved by raiding the social security fund and when he left office his "surplus" left the national debt almost 2 trillion higher than when he entered.
Politicians suck at their job. If you ask a Democrat voter if the budget should be balanced, you'd get a yes just as you would if you asked a Republican. The government spends irresponsibly. That's old news. Democrats do it more, but it's not a Democrat exclusive problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Yes, Bush spent a lot of money. The thing is, that money was spent in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush had 2 years prior to the 9/11 attacks and ran surpluses for both of those years. By contrast, the left's spending is in response to nothing - Obama has been winding down the wars and yet spending triple the money at the same time. So do you see the difference there? That means if you say Bush's spending was "irresponsible" in your own words, then given the Democrats' spending now, shouldn't you be attacking the left here rather than defending them? After all, if running a 500 billion dollar deficit in time of war is irresponsible, how can you justify running a 1,500 billion dollar deficit when the war is winding down?
It wasn't spent on 9/11. We invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and is either the biggest waste or second biggest waste of a war, next to Vietnam.
And I do think Obama spends irresponsibly. More irresponsibly than Bush, would also spent irresponsibly. But I won't let anyone say it's just the Democrats who waste money on useless things. That's obviously not true. We don't hold anyone in Washington accountable for anything ever, unless they're of the party we didn't vote for. So of course they'll waste money; sometimes they make an excuse, like 'it's so the terrorists don't win!' which some people apparently buy.
But hell, even Rand Paul, who I have a great deal of respect for as he's going after spending as a general problem, not just Obama's spending, wants to increase the military budget so we can fight a country that doesn't even exist. The problem is that they'll spend on what they think matters, then act as though ever other form of spending is somehow crossing the line.
You don't want a "living" document because words mean things. When 5 people can change the plain meaning of the Constitution or create law out of thin air it renders the document meaningless and you step through the looking glass.
And the change has been improper because there is no basis on which 5 unelected judges can create new law. Wickard v. Filburn is the most evil decision of the SCOTUS ever. Kelo v New London was a direct descendant of that horrible ruling.
I'm sorry the founders setup the Constitution where the Supreme Court was to determine Constitutionality....
It doesn't render the document meaningless at all... You just simply disagree with the decisions the Supreme Court was tasked to make. Simple as that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.