Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2013, 09:50 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
Perhaps you don't like to read, or you are just purposefully trying to be obtuse - from the analysis:

Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush's last two budget years. Obama's debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.
Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that's over.


The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time."



Someone can forcefully put you in a cart and ram you into a grocery store so I guess your logic is that it will be your fault.

A list of "libertarians" who have run as Republicans or have switched around between the two parties:

Ron Paul
Gary Johnson
David Koch,
..and many others.

I will ask you again: why don't libertarians run in Democrat primaries?

Obama owns his portion of the debt, why can't you admit that he and the domocrats controlled the congress and presidency in the first two years of his first term and then the senate and presidency the last two years. The blame bush game is tired. You have to be a democrat to run in the democrat primaries.
You can read this about libertarian democrats.
Daily Kos :: The Libertarian Dem
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2013, 09:53 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
So size of government simply means the amount/percentage spent and not the size of its work force or regulations/laws passed by it ?
It is just a quick bench mark, not an all encompassing budget standard. The workforce needs to fit inside the budget available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Jawjah
2,468 posts, read 1,913,497 times
Reputation: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Obama owns his portion of the debt, why can't you admit that he and the domocrats controlled the congress and presidency in the first two years of his first term and then the senate and presidency the last two years. The blame bush game is tired. You have to be a democrat to run in the democrat primaries.
You can read this about libertarian democrats.
Daily Kos :: The Libertarian Dem
Thats just an opinion piece. I just gave you examples of high profile "libertarians"/"republicans". There are no equivalent "libertarians"/"democrats". Libertarians are just sneakier versions of republicans..infact more dangerous than Tea Partiers because they can masquerade amongst the "cool kid" Democrats and others. It takes some time to sniff out a libertarian..

Democrats didn't control congress for Obama's first two years - they had majorities. There is a difference. Learn it. Senate bills had to pass with 60 votes. Republicans were (and have been) on a filibuster streak which has broken all records.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
Thats just an opinion piece. I just gave you examples of high profile "libertarians"/"republicans". There are no equivalent "libertarians"/"democrats". Libertarians are just sneakier versions of republicans..infact more dangerous than Tea Partiers because they can masquerade amongst the "cool kid" Democrats and others. It takes some time to sniff out a libertarian..

Democrats didn't control congress for Obama's first two years - they had majorities. There is a difference. Learn it. Senate bills had to pass with 60 votes. Republicans were (and have been) on a filibuster streak which has broken all records.
Here are some libertarian democrats
Libertarian Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former U.S. President Grover Cleveland of New York[9]
U.S. representatives

U.S. Representative G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina[10]
U.S. Representative Mike Thompson of California[11]
U.S. Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky[12]
Former U.S. Representative Paul Hodes of New Hampshire[13]
Former U.S. Representative Tim Penny of Minnesota[14]
U.S. senators

Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin[15]
Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska[16]
Former U.S. Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin[17]

The democrats had 59 senat seats for most of the first two years and the full 60 for almost 5 months. He still spent like crazy during his first 4 years. It is ok to critize him, it doesn't make you a bad democrat it just makes you honest. Just how I can critize bush.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 10:30 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,632,392 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Obama owns his portion of the debt, why can't you admit that he and the domocrats controlled the congress and presidency in the first two years of his first term and then the senate and presidency the last two years. The blame bush game is tired. You have to be a democrat to run in the democrat primaries.
You can read this about libertarian democrats.
Daily Kos :: The Libertarian Dem
LOL, that is because stupidity can not do math and they are being led by the nose by Obama and his news media. There is more going on behind the scenes than we know and people would rather live in a naive world thinking that Obama gives a damn. Anyone want to buy property in marshland? It would be a great place to live?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,756,486 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
I know 4 of them. I also realize that you can affectingly make something illegal within your own state by regulation it. Look at North and South Dakota, Mississippi and Iowa States with only 1 or 2 abortion clinics. They have legislated away the other clinics in their states effectively making it illegal to operate the clinics(,either by not having a residency at a local hospital or some other means.

You argue that there is no war on women but there is. I understand many conservatives just dont like the use of the word war in that context, but there is a restriction of womens rights going on, and it isnt just abortion, its contraception and pre cautionary exams both having legislation on them in multiple states(Arizona, Virginia,Ohio, Mississippi and 17 others.) and one national bill on it that would allow your boss to fire you if you asked for contraception in your health insurance.

again, take the word out of it and simply label it as a restriction on things that are legal at the moment. Do you think that is not happening ?
I made a statement and stand by it. I know none, zero, nada. You know 4 of them? That's like saying you know black people, so you empathize with them. So you only know 4 conservatives? Do you even realize how petty that statement becomes in the scheme of things?

You are arguing liberal/conservative semantics with a Libertarian. The way we, or at least I, look at it is: Liberals famously argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business when it comes to gays. WE take it one step further and say "the government shouldn't be in the abortion business either" This means they may regulate it for safety, but not finance abortion mills. If a woman wants an abortion then she (and/or her mate) should foot the bill for it. Take away the state funding of abortion mills (and that IS what they are) and let them run as a capitalist entity, because after all, they are in business to make money. If they fail, oh frikkin well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,756,486 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual View Post
Thats just an opinion piece. I just gave you examples of high profile "libertarians"/"republicans". There are no equivalent "libertarians"/"democrats". Libertarians are just sneakier versions of republicans..infact more dangerous than Tea Partiers because they can masquerade amongst the "cool kid" Democrats and others. It takes some time to sniff out a libertarian..

Democrats didn't control congress for Obama's first two years - they had majorities. There is a difference. Learn it. Senate bills had to pass with 60 votes. Republicans were (and have been) on a filibuster streak which has broken all records.
The perfect example of a progressive demonizing anything but a progressive. Trust me, Libertarians are in the middle and that's why we get bagged on by both sides. We are the true moderates in the the latest portrait of Americana.. You know what, as far as I can tell, the Democrats and Republicans have done a fine job of fk'ing everything up. I;d like nothing better than to have a Libertarian majority in government. They could take the country back, fix the mess, and then step aside for the next batch of Libertarians to continue on. This is the way the government was suppose to be ran.

Anyone who backs professional politicians is a fool. Anyone who still blames the minority for the failings of the majority, is an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 12:38 AM
 
3,040 posts, read 2,571,961 times
Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
So you do not believe in parental influence at all.

FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters | ThinkProgress



IMO, he's a chip right off the elder racist's block.

Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002
Those were taken out of context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 04:15 AM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,220,228 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71 View Post
Those were taken out of context.
Not really but,
Doesn't change the fact of him or his daddy thinking along the lines of what they do, which is racism.

It's no wonder the media didn't give him {Ron Paul} equal time during the debates, they saved him from himself, he, like willard, are their own worst enemies when it comes to speaking publicly.

Besides, Libertarian shouldn't even be a word, as it's derived from "liberal" and is anything but liberal.

Don't know why people chose the word libertarian for a party name to begin with, especially knowing they're associated with the TrEAsonous party, and having absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or liberty. Libertarian is like an oxymoron.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 04:29 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,278,969 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's not irrational.

Those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times that of those who don't. Stats and citations, here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/27093645-post127.html

Is that sustainable? Will the 49% who actually pay any federal income tax be able to afford to keep paying more and more to financially support an exponentially growing chronically poor class? And how "moral" or "kind" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor? What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why would any country do that to its own children? Why is incentivizing an increasingly larger poverty class Democrat/liberal policy?

Welfare programs make it easy and profitable for irresponsible people to bear child after child with NO thought whatsoever to providing for that child, guiding that child to adulthood, and helping that child develop his/her potential so they can be contributing members of society. Those children are nothing but freebie factories for the poor. That's what your beliefs endorse.
Look the welfare reform act of the 1990's put what is commonly known as fertility caps, which means that the moms don't get additional money for having additional children.

There is a time limit on TANF benefits of 3-5 years and there are explicit work requirements.

These requirements have been the law of the land concerning welfare for nearly 2 decades, yet conservatives are still lying.

The welfare rolls have shrunk a tremendous amount. This is objective reality.

So your basic premise that we have an exponentially growing underclass getting welfare/TANF has no basis in reality. NONE.

Also, I don't know ANY American family that isn't getting some kind of public assistance.

If you claim a tax deduction for your children, then you are getting public assistance.

If you claim a tax deduction for paying your mortgage and paying your property taxes, then you are getting public assistance. If your employer is giving you health insurance, then you are getting public assistance.

The reality is that the public assistance that many higher income Americans receive isn't classified as public assistance and it's hidden spending.

So your basic premise, that we can't afford to give assistance to poor people or that such assistance encourages irresponsible behavior, has no basis in any objective reality.

There has never been one study that shows that women have children based on the benefits they receive. None.

Also, I reject your basic premise that we can't afford to give assistance to poor people as a society but we can afford to give assistance to rich, upper middle class families to buy homes and get health insurance from their employers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top