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.
Obama's administration cut several thousand jobs out of federal government. If you're going to be fast and loose with your definition of "size," it obviously counts.
No it doesn't have anything to do with it. The deficits are almost triple what they were under Bush, and Bush was horrific. The amount of debt accumulated in Obama's 4 years when complete, will exceed the amount of debt compiled under Bush's 8 years ... that's more than DOUBLE the annual rate of increase.
So if any jobs were actually cut, that only means that the gangsters stole lots more money, while less American working people benefited.
I tell you what wasn't cut .... they didn't cut the goon squads of the TSA, ATF, EPA, FDA, and the IRS ... which is where some huge cuts are desperately needed.
It's natural progression, and from my view, quite logical politically.
Think about it....
Bush the Elder: Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Clinton: Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Bush the Younger: Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Obama: Neo-Liberal Institutionalist.
Romney doesn't have a voting record, but seeing his actions with respect to Bain Capital, I'd peg him as a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist as well.
Ideologically....
Mircea
Correct to the letter ... but there is room for more expanded, comprehensive definition:
Bush the Elder: Neo-Liberal-Globalist-Nazi-Satanic-Pedophile-Son of a Nazi criminal traitor.
Clinton: Neo-Liberal-Globalist-Bush Crime Family Capo.
Bush the Younger: Neo-Liberal-Globalist-Dullard Son of a Nazi-Pedophile-Traitor.
Obama: Neo-Liberal-Globalist-Madison Avenue created-CIA Trained-Fall Guy-Practical Joke on the American People.
So what's the chances of Romney being a good old Republican just coming in to save the day? Z E R O
How could you miss the sarcastic irony?Have you never read or not recall a single post of mine?
yes the smiley things help since I cannot detect tone or inflection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The point was to humorously mock, in an inoffensive and light hearted manner, the idea that someone could be a self proclaimed "liberal" while supporting almost everything on Ron Paul's list of purely conservative values which closely align with a person universally considered by liberals to be the voice of antiquated 18th century backwardness, that has no place in 21st Century Progressive Amerika.
I can think of very few ironies that could compete. What about you? Did you miss that too?
I became a mundane and grouped you with the ones who believe in liberty, freedom, and the rights of the individual only when they give me their permission, my mistake. (I confused you with another poster that has tx in his name)
"I'm pro life except when it comes to criminals who are already captured."
"Bailouts are bad when you do it, good when I do it."
"The new housing regulations will give equity to the lower and middle class."
"I'm for a conservative federal government except when it comes to the economy"
Do you blame me when I see people post the above and then see I your post?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 11-01-2012 at 01:44 PM..
Obama's administration cut several thousand jobs out of federal government. If you're going to be fast and loose with your definition of "size," it obviously counts.
It doesn't make sense. It's a naive to think that Toyota just up and came around with the Prius purely on market interest. Japan helped subsidize that vehicle--and so did the U.S. government, not to mention the wealth of research grants and credits towards green energy over the past few decades.
If you want to try and make a case out of Solyndra, you aren't going to get very far. My trusted news source, John Stewart, aired the other night a comparison on Bain Capital's success rate v. Obama's DoE grant money success rate.
22% failure to 8% failure. Of the 63 businesses that got money from the Department of Energy, five failed.
The government does a lot--and investing in green energy is definitely a role. Nobody seems to deny that the government has a vested interest in maintaining and developing our infrastructure, but why the backlash against creating better infrastructure? It's like we're only allowed to use telegraph lines because broadband internet was helped along by the federal government as a better alternative.
The forgotten man syndrome. What about all the other companies who are into making affordable cars similar to the prius? What happens to them since they aren't the Kings choice to be the winner? Subsidize something you get more of it and you hurt the ones who are not receiving the special favors.
I count on the individuals to tell us what they want. If they purchase it that tells us they want it. You cannot force things on adults for their own good and expect them to accept it. That's the problem, people managing peoples lives and telling them whats good for them. Did regulating the housing industry work out for Americans and raise the equity of the lower and middle class like they said? Big government uses our tax money to pay for their causes. We spend the money on things we want. We don't save it, we put it right back into the economy and that creates jobs.
If you want to know about low cost green energy look up Tesla and see what big government did to his affordable energy source.
You compare Solyndra with Bain Capital? No one forced me to pay for Bain Capital. Solyndra was shoved down my throat.
To say that I may be overly cynical regarding politics and politicians would probably be an understatement. And I know the mainstream kool-aide drinkers will just say ... "there he goes again with the conspiracy theories" .... but I have had my doubts about Ron Paul for quite a long time, and for several reasons. But this debacle with him and Rand and the Republican hijacking of delegates and the funny business that he refused to challenge and then Rand endorsing Romney all the while they were still urging supporters to support the Paul ticket (meaning still donate) .... they lost all credibility in my view.
Personally, I never could quite reconcile why Paul would remain in the Republican party when they marginalized him at every opportunity. He was so popular in his district, and went unchallenged, he could have run as an independent and still won a seat in the house. So why didn't he?
The notion that he could effect some change in the party from the inside is not a valid answer, because nobody could be that dense. No, every possibility comes up empty and dry ... which had me considering a possibility that seems to be the only answer .... he was always nothing more than controlled opposition to keep the disenfranchised portion of the registered Republicans hoping for and supporting a Republican rather than defect to the Libertarian or Constitution party ... and now, with his Son in the Senate, he can pass that torch to him and retire.
And though Rand has a much better voting record than the rest of his Republican counterparts, he's also thrown in with Romney now, who is a pure liberal globalist, and wants to obviously pass along to Romney the substantial following of his father who might otherwise leave and vote 3rd party.
Are the Pauls that deluded into believing that Romney will promote a conservative agenda? Or do they consider Obama such a danger that Romney is the only option, no matter how distasteful? Maybe. Does Rand Paul think that going along with the Republicans may get him an opportunity in a Romney Administration, and later, a better shot at the Presidency himself in 2016? I don't see that as a reasonable strategy. Or is it the more simple answer ... they're part of the scam and serve as controlled opposition? That seems to me to be the most likely scenario.
Aside from Romney perhaps letting up on the throttle some ... I see little material difference between him and Obama, and don't have an answer for why Ron Paul wouldn't have just run as an independent with the popular support he had. He could have smashed this artificial barrier that the Democrats and Republicans have put around them to block a 3rd party from gaining prominence and acceptance as a viable challenge to this one party-two name fraud.
It saddens me to say that the most likely situation is that Ron and Rand Paul are just part of the show.
Neither has changed policy. It's always about policy.
You change the party from within and you start at the local level. Ron Paul has been saying that for a while.
Obama's administration cut several thousand jobs out of federal government. If you're going to be fast and loose with your definition of "size," it obviously counts.
Then why has spending increased? THAT is the problem. It's not revenue, it's out of control spending.
If one does not recognize the cause, one cannot solve the problem.
Then why has spending increased? THAT is the problem. It's not revenue, it's out of control spending.
If one does not recognize the cause, one cannot solve the problem.
Monetary easing!
Printing dollar bills, making each dollar now worth less product.
Now it takes more dollar bills, to buy the same thing.
Cost have not increased. the value of the dollar bill has gone down.
Then why has spending increased? THAT is the problem. It's not revenue, it's out of control spending.
If one does not recognize the cause, one cannot solve the problem.
Revenue is a big problem. Spending is a problem too, but it hasn't gone up that much lately. They need to cut spending and raise revenue. Of course revenue will raise on its own when recovery picks up, especially jobs and housing recovery.
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.
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.
