1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who's your money on?Follow

#1077 Apr 29 2016 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
This would be a good place to link the comprehensive GOP plan.


Um... Was the existence of one in doubt? I don't recall anyone being confused about what the GOP plan is, so maybe just read farther up the thread?

Quote:
Eisenhower said it's bad, gbaji says it's good.


I didn't say it was good. I said that the same problem exists for any industry that the government gets too tightly involved in.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Painting spending on military as "bad" in this context, and while ignoring that the same problems can exist with any spending is foolish IMO.
And it never occured to you that the warning was put out there to point out that if the M-I complex gets a free run with the moneyball that you won't have enough to spend on those other things? I'm astonished, I say, astonished.


What's astonishing is that you read me saying the same thing, twice, and still failed to understand it.

Has it occurred to you that the same warning about the military industrial complex, and the same potential problem with it, is just as equally a problem with the healthcare industry, and the housing industry (gee, it's not like we just saw fallout from that), and the education industry, and well, anything else the government gets involved in and thus creates a profit motive for the industry to build to the governments desires, while lobbying in order to create those desires so as to build their own industry.

The same dangers exists in all industries. But it seems as though some want to assume that the military is the only one that's a problem, or that this somehow makes that a special case we should keep an eye on, while strapping blinders on our heads when it comes to the excessive waste in other areas that exists.


Quote:
Of course we understand that. Hence all the people pointing out that the "conservatives" will happily spend a kadrillion dollars on things they want and try to suppress or eliminate spending on things they don't want. Hence the repeated point of fact that they are social conservatives.


Clearly you don't understand it. Because despite me explaining this several times, you're still ignoring that the defining point is not based on a social agenda, but on the starting point of "small government". Our willingness to spend money at the federal level to maintain a military and to engage in foreign policy is not based on a social agenda, but that this is the proper role of the federal government. Our desire to trim or eliminate federal spending on things like housing assistance, education, food stamps, welfare of all kinds, etc, etc, is also not driven by a social agenda, but by the same "small government" rule.

The Left pursues a spending regime at the federal level in pursuit of their social agenda, but it's incorrect to assume that the Right opposes that regime for their own, counter, social agenda. As I've pointed out many times on this forum, we literally speak a different language, and are pursuing ideologies that are on different axis. A liberal will support federal spending to help the poor because he believes in the social agenda of helping the poor. When he see a conservative oppose that spending, he assumes it's because the conservative is pursuing a social agenda in opposition to helping the poor. But the conservative opposes it because he believes that the federal level is the wrong level to engage in that sort of social activity. His reasons for opposing it are completely different than the liberals reason for supporting it. The sooner you accept that this is the truth, the easier it'll be for you to actually understand the political landscape of the US.

Quote:
You're free to think that. You're deluding yourself (shocker!), but fell free to keep thinking that, Pollyanna.


And yet, when the GOP had control of the white house and both houses of congress, did they embark on a national campaign to force people to pray in school? Or to require all public schools teach creationism in science class? Or, frankly, any sort of social agenda at all? You (and others) can keep claiming this, but the reality is that the GOP does not spend money pursuing a federal social agenda. They may attempt to decrease spending on existing liberally placed social spending at the federal level, but that's not the same thing. And sometimes, out of necessity the GOP may make attempts to modify existing spending in ways that we think may be more efficient, but that's also not the same thing.

Spending increases almost always are in the realms that fit into our small government model. But hey. If you can provide specific examples of the GOP doing otherwise, I'd be glad to hear them and to engage in discussion about them.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If you actually allowed the GOP to remain in power for more than a few years at a time, and in more than just one branch here or one part of a branch there, you'd see a massive difference in total spending. It just hasn't happened (certainly not since the adoption of fiscal conservatism by the GOP).
A one party system is never a good idea, but thanks for clarifying you opinions about it.Smiley: thumbsup


Um... That's a heck of a sidestep there. So you'll happily blame the GOP for spending, despite the fact that said spending is being driven by the Democrats, but any attempt to even speculate about what the GOP would do if they weren't saddled with the Dem policies already in place is ignored on the grounds that "A one party system is never a good idea"? You've basically just argued that we can't judge the GOP on it's own merits at all, ever, for any reason. Which just seems kinda pointless as a counter. You certainly have no problem blaming the GOP for failing to act on its own ideology, so it seems silly to insist that we should never allow it to actually do that, right? You're creating the conditions you're complaining about.

Edited, Apr 29th 2016 3:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1078 Apr 29 2016 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
You can't both increase spending and decrease total spending at the same time. It can work if you're actually reducing the role of government, and decreasing the total spending overall, but again, that doesn't seem to happen much.


Correct. But it "doesn't seem to happen much" because you've got one party actively pursuing a set of goals that literally measures success based on how much money it spends on various domestic social agendas and another that tries to limit that spending while ensuring that the federal government can do the small number of things that it actually is supposed to do. The net result is that when the GOP has the chance to do anything, it's usually unable to actually eliminate domestic spending, but has to attempt to fix the often neglected stated of our military and foreign policy stuff (since the Dems don't care about that, and see it as money that could be better spend on their domestic agenda).

So yeah, the net result is often an increase in total spending. But... And this is a key point. If the GOP was able to do what it actually wants to do, total spending would actually decrease, because it would eliminate a whole boatload of domestic spending. We just have not had the political power to accomplish this, like, ever. That doesn't mean that we don't believe in fiscal conservatism, and small government. Don't confuse an inability to accomplish out goals with some kind of hypocrisy. If you want to actually see small government and fiscal conservatism in action, then vote GOP. It's that simple. If you vote Democrat (speaking of a broad "you" here, and not you specifically), you then can't complain that the principles of fiscal conservatism are not "happening much".

Quote:
Don't invoke government unless absolutely necessary. Use it only when there's no other means to accomplish something, or when other means lead to a grossly inefficient or otherwise unworkable outcome.


Which is more or less exactly what the GOP would like to do. If it could. Again, you get that there are two major parties in the US, and the GOP is only one of them. Placing blame on the GOP for the things that the Democrats do seems kinda silly. Doubly so when most of those trying to attack the GOP with this line of reasoning are themselves Democrats.

Quote:
I'll continue to do so as long as I think they're using the phrase disingenuously. They know it means different things to different people, and they'll continue using it because hearing it draws in voters, voters who don't realize they're using to mean something else. They have no real motivation to clarify, because it'll lose them votes, so they're perfectly happy to continue using it despite knowing it's misleading people. So yes, being hypocritical or maybe deceitful. Probably some better word for it in there somewhere.


Huh? But it's not conservatives who keep redefining the meaning of the phrase. It's the liberals who do, so they can set an impossible standard which the GOP must comply with, so they can do exactly what you're doing now: claim that they are hypocrites. Ask 100 conservatives what small government means, and they'll all say something about limiting the power of the federal government down to just a small number of things it's supposed to do. You might occasionally get someone who'll mention reducing the total spending, but that's a side effect, not the primary objective.

No one (except apparently liberals and some forum posters around here) is confused about what small government is. Even lol-wiki gets it right:

wiki wrote:
Small government is government which minimizes its own activities. It is an important topic in libertarianism and classical liberalism.


Read the section on the US. No where is the total spending of government mentioned. Quite prominent is the idea that government isn't the solution, it's the problem. You're premise is based on a definition of the phrase that only exists among people who are using that incorrect definition as a tool in political debates. That's simply absurd. That's not what it means. That's not what conservatives think it means. I'm not sure where you get that idea, but it's just plain wrong.

Quote:
Dude, we gave baby Bush 8 years to do it, and he didn't. There's a point you have to stop lying to yourself about it. If he really wanted to cut spending he would have, he didn't want to, and he didn't do it.


Didn't do what? First off, he had only 6 years. Secondly, he never had more than a slim majority in congress. Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier, many of the spending programs were still on going. You get that it's much harder to eliminate an existing spending law than to write a new one. What Bush didn't do was increase social spending. The contrast is between someone like Bush and Obama. Not hard to see the spending difference there.

Quote:
Didn't take Clinton that long to draw back military spending. Maybe ya'll should ask him for some tips or something?


Well, isn't this the problem? If the only spending cuts on the table are military cuts, that's somewhat of a problem for the party that believe that the military is one of the correct things that should be well funded by the federal government, while all the other domestic stuff isn't. You're setting an unfair standard here, insisting that the only way for conservatives to prove their small government and/or fiscal conservative nature is if they cut military spending while keeping domestic social spending the same. Um... That's not going to work for us.


gbaji wrote:
What I find amazing about this is that we can see two semi clear examples of that difference just in the last 15 years. The difference between spending increases during the Bush years and Obama years is absolutely massive.

They seem to not mind spending. At least there's no major changes there to make me think they're really committed to it. From what I can tell the two parties are basically identical. The only one in the last 50 years or so that looks like he's cut relative spending to any degree is Clinton, and that'd be mostly because of the post cold-war draw-down of the military if memory serves me right (coupled with a robust economy, in the case of the GDP-normalized graph)[/quote]

And? Look at the difference between Bush and Obama. See the difference? The graph proves my point, doesn't it?

You also have to remember that spending is not just about who's in the white house. It bugs the heck out of me that all the graphs and charts out there only correlate this to the president in power. But if you pay attention to who has power in the congress as well, the data looks very different. ?What you see is a pattern where as long as the GOP maintains at least some power in the government, spending stays constant and sometimes drops (but sometimes rises, but only slightly). The periods where the Dems control congress and the white house? That's when the big jumps occur. And once they do, it often takes a very long time to correct for them because the Dems tend to love to create big massive entitlement programs that are very very hard to eliminate.

More importantly (and relevant to this discussion), is that when spending increases during a GOP period, it's almost always military spending. Because, as I've said several times, the Dems tend to neglect our military when in power, seeing it as spending that could be redirected to their precious social programs. But when the GOP comes into power, they know they have to correct for that, but can't eliminate the social spending that has been put in place, creating the appearance of a total spending increase. But that's an illusion because the real spending increase came during the Dems period, it was just masked by offsetting cuts to our military and foreign policy stuff.

Again though, it's not fair at all to say that the GOP is hypocritical in its objectives and goals. We just live in an imperfect world where those goals cannot always be realized. But to place blame on the GOP for spending increases that the Democrats pushed in and then fight tooth and nail to protect, is really unfair. If you actually think that spending is bad, then blame the people who put the money there. Don't blame the guys who were unable to prevent it. That just seems silly to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1079 Apr 29 2016 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
This would be a good place to link the comprehensive GOP plan.
Um... Was the existence of one in doubt? I don't recall anyone being confused about what the GOP plan is, so maybe just read farther up the thread?
Did you link one upthread? I must have missed that.
Bijou wrote:
Of course we understand that. Hence all the people pointing out that the "conservatives" will happily spend a kadrillion dollars on things they want and try to suppress or eliminate spending on things they don't want. Hence the repeated point of fact that they are social conservatives.
gbaji wrote:
Clearly you don't understand it. Because despite me explaining this several times...
Me disagreeing with you assesment of the situation is not the same as not understanding the situation, you arrogant twit.
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
If you actually allowed the GOP to remain in power for more than a few years at a time, and in more than just one branch here or one part of a branch there, you'd see a massive difference in total spending. It just hasn't happened (certainly not since the adoption of fiscal conservatism by the GOP).
A one party system is never a good idea, but thanks for clarifying you opinions about it.Smiley: thumbsup


gbaji wrote:
Um... That's a heck of a sidestep there.
Hardly. You just said that if the conservatives had all the power they would do whatever they wished fiscally. You clearly think that this would be a grand thing. Ergo, you want a one-party government run by your precious conservatives. QE fucking D.

I'm blind, but neither I, nor any other reader here is that blind.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1080 May 01 2016 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump +15 in Indiana in today's Marist/WSJ/NBC poll. Clinton +4.

Edited, May 1st 2016 9:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1081 May 03 2016 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts


gbaji wrote:
Well, isn't this the problem? If the only spending cuts on the table are military cuts, that's somewhat of a problem for the party that believe that the military is one of the correct things that should be well funded by the federal government, while all the other domestic stuff isn't. You're setting an unfair standard here, insisting that the only way for conservatives to prove their small government and/or fiscal conservative nature is if they cut military spending while keeping domestic social spending the same. Um... That's not going to work for us.
The point was more along the lines of he managed a bigger cut than anyone else. The part about it being part of a military drawdown and there being a robust economy was me throwing the Republicans a bone, suggesting that it wasn't all Clinton magic or something.


gbaji wrote:
And? Look at the difference between Bush and Obama. See the difference? The graph proves my point, doesn't it?
Okay now you're just really reaching. The Obama rise gets the same qualification as the Clinton drop, economic situations and such. If you want to feel good about something at least Bush bailing out the banks was more significant than the Obama's economic recovery plan.

gbaji wrote:
You also have to remember that spending is not just about who's in the white house. It bugs the heck out of me that all the graphs and charts out there only correlate this to the president in power.
Wouldn't stress over it too much, they're basically a flat line.

gbaji wrote:
That's when the big jumps occur.
There are no major jumps on those graphs, post-WWII at least. The biggest thing we could make a fuss about is the little bump around that happened around the "great recession."

gbaji wrote:
Again though, it's not fair at all to say that the GOP is hypocritical in its objectives and goals. We just live in an imperfect world where those goals cannot always be realized. But to place blame on the GOP for spending increases that the Democrats pushed in and then fight tooth and nail to protect, is really unfair. If you actually think that spending is bad, then blame the people who put the money there. Don't blame the guys who were unable to prevent it. That just seems silly to me.
I blame both sides equally for it, because both sides spend the money, and neither makes large-scale changes to that. Each party takes turns shifting around a little cash to their pet projects and playing housekeeper for a decade or so before swapping places.

However the Republicans tend to bother me more on spending because they're the side that wants an exception for their "trying to prevent it" attitude, while spending cash at the same rate when given the chance. At least the "tax and spend" liberal fesses up to what s/he's doing. If it makes you feel better it bothers me when liberals make a big deal about human rights, then proceed to leave Guantanamo open for Obama's whole presidency; or complain about the environmental problems then only make token gestures in that regard.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1082 May 03 2016 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Quote:
"His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous," Mr Trump said on Tuesday. "I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?"


Suppose after the whole birther thing a couple of years back, this looks relatively level-headed. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, May 3rd 2016 12:11pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1083 May 03 2016 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
My first reaction was "Wasn't that a tabloid story?"
article wrote:
Mr Trump brought up a story that recently appeared in the National Enquirer.
And it was. Smiley: laugh

Liars lying about liars.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1084 May 03 2016 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Donald Trump locking himself in as the choice of the Republican voter, with currently 55% in Indiana (7% reporting)

Edit: Looks like Trump is going to sweep the state.

Edited, May 3rd 2016 7:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1085 May 04 2016 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
This would be a good place to link the comprehensive GOP plan.
Um... Was the existence of one in doubt? I don't recall anyone being confused about what the GOP plan is, so maybe just read farther up the thread?
Did you link one upthread? I must have missed that.


I wrote in my own words what the GOP plan is, and no one challenged it, so forgive me for assuming we were all in agreement with what the GOP wants to do. Was there disagreement? But hey. If you really need me to link it for you (click on the part about immigration).

Read. Learn. Become informed. Pretty much everything I've been talking about, including the idea of a guest worker program is in there. Obviously, this is a broad platform position, and the details of any specific implementation may vary (which I've also stated repeatedly), but that is the GOP position on the issue. What exactly do you not understand?


Quote:
Bijou wrote:
Of course we understand that. Hence all the people pointing out that the "conservatives" will happily spend a kadrillion dollars on things they want and try to suppress or eliminate spending on things they don't want. Hence the repeated point of fact that they are social conservatives.
gbaji wrote:
Clearly you don't understand it. Because despite me explaining this several times...
Me disagreeing with you assesment of the situation is not the same as not understanding the situation, you arrogant twit.


Except that your assessment ignores the very explanation I've provided to you. I have stated many times that conservatives don't choose where to spend money based on what they want versus what they don't want. It's based on what level of government that spending is appropriate. That's not a subjective choice. It's a legal scope issue. Only the federal government can operate a military outside the US. Only the federal government can enter into treaties with other nations. Only the federal government can regulate trade between foreign governments and the US. Get the pattern here? Our position is that we should do things at the federal level that can only legally be done at the federal level and nothing else.

It's not about "happily spending" money. It's not about likes and dislikes. Every time I explain this to you, you respond by repeating the same assertion that we're just subjectively picking things to fund at the federal level because we like them. Which indicates to me that you didn't understand me.

You're free to talk about the quantity of spending if you want, and I could even accept that. But you keep inserting statements of motivation for *why* the GOP supports spending on X, but not Y. That's the part I have an issue with. Drop words like "happily", and "what they want/not want", and you'll be closer to a legitimate response. And then we can get into things like the concept that if you think the total federal budget is too high and the GOP should trim it, then the obvious response would be to eliminate things like education spending, social welfare spending, medicare, social security, etc. That would reduce the total federal spending by about 2/3rds, and leave us plenty of money to fund the things the federal government "must" do, and give everyone in the country a nice tax break too!

If we're actually talking about total dollars, that is. But you're still going on about how we feel about it, and what we like or dislike. That's totally not the issue with us.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... That's a heck of a sidestep there.
Hardly. You just said that if the conservatives had all the power they would do whatever they wished fiscally. You clearly think that this would be a grand thing. Ergo, you want a one-party government run by your precious conservatives. QE fucking D.


No. I said if the GOP had enough power to actually implement their spending policy. That does not requires a "one party system". You get that you can have a two party (or more) system with the voters choosing to vote for one of the party's without eliminating all the others, or even the possibility of the existence of other parties. When you say "one party system", you're talking about a political system in which there is actually only one party, can only be one party, and no one else can form another party and challenge them.

That's a ridiculous number of steps past merely having one party in a two party system gain prominence in the government long enough to actually implement some of their policies. The Democrats have had this kind of power on many occasions, and have used it to do things like introduce social security and medicare, then a few decades later implement massive welfare enhancements (Johnson's "Great Society", and a few decades after that Obama pushed his Obamacare, and a massive spending increase in the guise of a recovery act. The difference between the two parties is that the policies of the Democrats are quick and easy to implement, but have effect for a long time. The policies of the Republicans take much longer to implement though.

It takes one year of having control to pass a new law that mandates ongoing spending of X dollars for something. It takes many years of power to undo that (often requiring holding power long enough to allow said law to expire and die naturally). It's much much harder to undo spending than to do it in the first place. Hence why it's incredibly unfair to look at the GOP having power for a few years, and seeing that spending didn't go down (note, that it didn't go up though), and conclude that they're lying about their spending policy. It's just hard to see changes when the policy is to *not* do something. It is, on the other hand, very very easy to see the results of spending increases. And one need only look at the massive jump between Bush and Obama to see the difference between what the GOP does regarding spending versus the Democrats.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1086 May 04 2016 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
The point was more along the lines of he managed a bigger cut than anyone else. The part about it being part of a military drawdown and there being a robust economy was me throwing the Republicans a bone, suggesting that it wasn't all Clinton magic or something.


Ok. I can accept that. I guess my issue was that it appeared to create the perception that the only valid way to reduce the budget is the way that Clinton did it. It kinda sets the playing field in an unfair way. I'll accept that that's not how you meant it, but I've encountered the whole "Clinton balanced the budget by doing X, Y, and Z, so if the GOP really wants to show their fiscal conservative side, they should do X, Y, and Z" enough times that I tend to just react to that assumed argument even when not directly stated.

That argument was the root of the whole "let the Bush tax cuts expire" thing just a few years back, remember? And it's been made on many occasions when talking about the Bush economy versus the Clinton economy that most of the spending increase during Bush's term was military (perhaps with some inclusion of the phrase "illegal wars" tossed in for good measure), thus that spending is "blamed" for Bush not being a good fiscal conservative, and thus, anyone opposed to cutting military spending is *also* not a good fiscal conservative. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for being a bit sensitive to this.

Quote:
Okay now you're just really reaching. The Obama rise gets the same qualification as the Clinton drop, economic situations and such. If you want to feel good about something at least Bush bailing out the banks was more significant than the Obama's economic recovery plan.


The Obama rise cannot solely be blamed on GDP shrinkage. There was, in fact, very little actual shrinkage (just loss of growth). Given that spending normally goes up just as a measure of things like inflation (and mandated spending increases baked into many spending bills), you're correct that some of that bump isn't the result of spending choices, but just part of a recessionary effect. However, it's kinda hard to just dismiss over a trillion dollars of new spending that got tossed into the mix in just the first year of Obama taking office (and the absence of new budgets and reliance on continuing resolutions to just keep spending at those higher levels since then). If he'd kept spending relatively level, you'd have a point (and the bump would not be so large or last so long). But he didn't. I think, if we're specifically talking about the differences between the two parties on spending,t hat it's quite fair to point to actual new spending and who did it.

That he did this in the midst of a recession just makes it that much more of a problem.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Again though, it's not fair at all to say that the GOP is hypocritical in its objectives and goals. We just live in an imperfect world where those goals cannot always be realized. But to place blame on the GOP for spending increases that the Democrats pushed in and then fight tooth and nail to protect, is really unfair. If you actually think that spending is bad, then blame the people who put the money there. Don't blame the guys who were unable to prevent it. That just seems silly to me.
I blame both sides equally for it, because both sides spend the money, and neither makes large-scale changes to that. Each party takes turns shifting around a little cash to their pet projects and playing housekeeper for a decade or so before swapping places.


Again though, I think it's unfair to place equal blame on the party that tries to prevent spending but often fails as on the party that actively seeks to increase spending. It's also unfair to speak in terms of "spending" money. It's more correct to talk about new spending. Most of the spending bills that the Democrats pass mandate a given rate of spending for something over a period of time (and in many cases, automatically renew unless you take action to prevent it). The GOP may technically "spend" that money while in office, but that's because the literally have no legal choice. And unless the voters grant them enough power to undo that spending (and support them in this), you can't blame the GOP for failing in this regard.

You certainly shouldn't say that they are both the same on spending.

Quote:
However the Republicans tend to bother me more on spending because they're the side that wants an exception for their "trying to prevent it" attitude, while spending cash at the same rate when given the chance.


Except that they don't. I get why the Democrats go to great lengths to convince people of this, but it's just not true. New long term mandated spending does not tend to be created when the GOP is in power. And that's where the big ticket budget items come from. Once passed, it's nearly impossible to unpass it. That's not indicative of what the GOP would like to do, but what they're stuck with as a result of past Dem spending bills. Blaming them for it is very unfair.

Quote:
At least the "tax and spend" liberal fesses up to what s/he's doing.


Except when they make a point of arguing that the GOP does the same thing. If they were honest, they'd admit that they are the ones who create the lions share of the spending and even run on it proudly. The fact that there is this huge movement to try to place equal "blame" for spending costs on the GOP says that they know that spending levels are unpopular, but they can't run away from it since their platform relies on increased spending to pay for all the social programs they need to garner popular support. So instead they have to convince people that the GOP would spend just as much money as they do (but apparently on "evil" things instead of the good they do with it).

That's where your own assumption comes from. But it doesn't take much poking around in budget proposals and spending bills to see which side pushes for more new spending. It's overwhelmingly the Democrats.

Quote:
If it makes you feel better it bothers me when liberals make a big deal about human rights, then proceed to leave Guantanamo open for Obama's whole presidency; or complain about the environmental problems then only make token gestures in that regard.


Fair enough. And yes, I suppose you could argue that each side promises things even when it knows it may not be able to deliver them. Again though, I just keep coming back to what the party in question actually wants to do. The GOP actually does want to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. It's a key platform item. I suppose that some in the Democrats want world peace, and a clean environment, but it really does seem to me like those are just the things it tells people it wants in order to get them on board with ever increasing federal domestic power. Maybe I'm jaded on this, but it really does seem like for the last 30 years or so the Democrats have more or less abandoned their stated "goals", and have just sought power for the sake of power. Now maybe they really do believe that if they just have enough, they can then finally do all those things that will make the world a better place. But I suspect that long before they get to that end, the means they're using will become corrupt, and that will become the new goal.

Clinton's kind of a great example of this. Does anyone here actually believe she cares about things like clean environment, equal rights, health care for the poor, better education, etc, etc? Or do we all think she just uses those things as lip service to gain power? Again, maybe in the process of voting someone like Clinton into power will result in some of the things she paid lip service to being done as a sort of side effect, but as you point out, even Obama, who I believe actually does believe in a lot more of those social causes than Clinton does, failed to actually do much at all in terms of those promises. He shuffled around the deck a bit. He granted the federal government massive amounts of new power, while providing some minor improvement to health care coverage for maybe 5% of the population. And I'm sure we could think of a few other things as well. But not what I think most people were hoping for when he ran on "hope and change".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1087 May 04 2016 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
This would be a good place to link the comprehensive GOP plan.
Um... Was the existence of one in doubt? I don't recall anyone being confused about what the GOP plan is, so maybe just read farther up the thread?
Did you link one upthread? I must have missed that.
I wrote in my own words what the GOP plan is, and no one challenged it, so forgive me for assuming we were all in agreement with what the GOP wants to do. Was there disagreement? But hey. If you really need me to link it for you (click on the part about immigration).
Hey! A link! Thanks!! You're OK with me wanting to read it from the horses mouth rather than trust you, right?



Having perused that, I see quite a bit about the S.A.V.E. program and nothing at all about streamlining the process of, y'know, actually masking it easier to get in in the first place. Got a link for that?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1088 May 05 2016 at 3:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
It's hilarious how pundits even now are disparaging Trump's chances in the General. Zero got that right after his entrance. Zero.

And it's worrisome that/if some Clinton supporters think it's in the bag so sleep well at night. "She'll destroy him in debates! She'll X! She'll Y!" No more getting out the vote needed!

Despite Trump destroying (aka getting votes from whoever) the seasoned GOP candidates in the primary. If there's one obvious prediction in this election cycle, it's that pundits don't know ****. And also that fat-cats patting their Rubio or Cruz or Clinton bellies should kind of wake up and look around.

And also, well, Clinton vs. Trump:

Clinton is a pretty awful campaigner, own-goals every week. Trump is a "what?" campaigner, not sure who supports him or where he campaigns but if he's parity, well, she may not be. Both are roughly equal on the "dislike" meter, historically so.

Clinton is a good debater, able to call down facts from any topic and put such facts on point to the rival. But that might not matter (keep in mind not all Americans give a **** about facts). Trump might spout 99% BS yet still win the debate, according to the electorate, who is the only audience anyone predicting anything should care about (not all are as punditous as you gosh!). I think there's too much isolation by pundits and such who think "well, this fact, that fact, logical processes" will win the day. Whether by general campaign or individual debate. For instance if Trump delivers 1% facts and Clinton 99% but he puts her defensive, or makes her "rile up" (and don't underestimate the misognyists who would be aghast at a woman speaking loud. Should not exist, but does), he'll have won the debate.

Underestimate at your doom, Democrats. I'm voting for Jill Stein btw. **** both of them. And if you say I'm wasting my vote, no, both parties and also dumb voters ensured that by voting ********* as nominees. Want my vote? Earn it.

Edited, May 5th 2016 6:32am by Palpitus1
#1089 May 05 2016 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
It's hilarious how pundits even now are disparaging Trump's chances in the General. Zero got that right after his entrance. Zero.

A few people have pointed out that, while pundits didn't believe he would make it, the polls showed Trump winning from the start and never wavered, People just didn't want to believe that the polls were accurate or always assumed that there'd be some major correction or realignment down the line. I started out that way and then changed to "My heart says he'll lose but my mind sees no rational evidence that he won't win". Guess my mind won that one.
Quote:
Underestimate at your doom, Democrats.

People say this but... eh. There's no indication that Clinton is underestimating or complacent. The DNC and various party arms will continue to press and, if the map is expanded, then they'll press further and hope to swing some additional states or down-ballot choices. I don't imagine many people are saying "Well, Trump is the nominee so I guess I can stay home instead of voting for Clinton". Clinton and the Democrats have every reason to go full steam ahead: she's going to want to sweep as much of the map as possible so she can claim a mandate going into her term.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1090 May 05 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Underestimate at your doom, Democrats.
People say this but... eh. There's no indication that Clinton is underestimating or complacent.
BUT SHE IS WEAK! WEEEEAAAAK! And all the evil liberals who are voting for Trump to sabotage the holy order of conservatives are also going to vote for him in the general for some odd reason.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1091 May 05 2016 at 8:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Well, "mandate" is a kinda useless term and should be eschewed. Plus independents now currently outweigh either of the two parties, 42% to 28%, 29% or something. And both candidates are unliked--even by their own peeps!

Raarh!

But yeah, hopefully as you say the Dems won't be complacent. Hopefully Clinton's team is assessing each state for it's EC potential. And not that I want her to win, I wish both her and Trump to burn in a lake of fire. But Clinton does seem to be on a better EC track. (though again, what's up with this election who knows!) But also again, not much pundits have even referenced the EC. Though I guess soon. With equal idiocy and wrong predictions so why bother perchance.

Thanks for the link. Color me surprised!

But yeah, it's down now, so EC so state-by-state.

Edited, May 5th 2016 10:20am by Palpitus1
#1092 May 05 2016 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
But also again, not much pundits have even referenced the EC. Though I guess soon. With equal idiocy and wrong predictions so why bother perchance.

Got to read/listen to the right people. Charlie Cook is tracking the electoral college and is currently predicting an "easy" win for Clinton (over 270 without any tossup states) although that's subject to change, of course.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1093 May 05 2016 at 9:19 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Thanks again for a link. That's the big hill Trump would have to climb and presumably, this looks about right. I just don't know what's right now, all right looks wrong and vice-versa.

But thanks. I think Democrats are way overestimating Clinton v. Trump debates etc. though. And Clinton's almost pathological self-injuries (she's an awful campaigner).

There may be surprises yet to come. "Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory" is a Clinton thing, maybe. Both she and Bill should just STFU for the remainder. I'm not sure one single word they say is worth the other 40 idiotic words to WVa coal-miners or whoever. Just stop talking. Nothing wrong with coasting. Just stop talking. I'll vote for Stein regardless and hope you burn in a lake of fire but for now just like, stop talking. Just odds. No talk---good chance to win. Talk---good chance say something stupid every week.

I feel like Lord Humongous. NO TALK. NO TALK.
#1094 May 05 2016 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No argument that Clinton is a poor campaigner. And I have no idea how the debates will play out with Trump's theatrics against Clinton's policy wonk. But then, I think people overestimate the effects of debates anyway especially today when every comment gets a rapid response from the other camp. Back in the day, debates were your chance to see the two candidates give their views and interact; these days we get that 24/7.

I don't necessarily find the "Oh, people will just get used to Trump" or "But Trump was underestimated in the primary" to be especially convincing. Trump won the GOP primary (as predicted by the polls) but the general population has been listening to the same stuff -- and I assume penetration of Trump's comments is much deeper than regular election buzz -- and still views him very negatively. Far worse than Clinton even: -37 vs -16. There's not really an indication yet that the general voter will be saying "Haha, that Trump, he so silly!" and giving him a pass.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1095 May 05 2016 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just for the fun of tooting my own horn, here's a fellow who agrees with me except he probably got paid for it.
National Review Online wrote:
To them I say: Stop it. Stop talking yourself into it. Conventional wisdom was wrong precisely because it didn’t heed the polls. It expected voter sentiments to change and Republicans to “get serious” as the election approached. As it turns out, they were serious all along. Trump tapped into something, all right. But the tide of grievance, resentment, and white identity politics he rode to the nomination is a drop in the general-election bucket. But (you might say) favorability isn’t static, nor are polls. He started out underwater even with Republicans. And indeed, Trump did turn around his numbers in short order — first by demonstrating that this wasn’t just a reality-TV stunt, then by flouting conventional norms and political taboos. The problem is that none of this happened in a vacuum. What sells to a plurality of the GOP primary electorate is not necessarily compatible with the general-election marketplace. It’s not that the rest of the country has yet to be introduced to Trump the candidate; it’s that they watched the primary in horror, and now they can’t stand him.
[...]
And that’s the irony: The Trump of May 2015, the apolitical celebrity, could have made things interesting. Instead he mortgaged everything to win the hearts and minds of 40 percent of 25 percent of the country. His wild-card potential has been negated by his uncanny George Wallace impression these past ten months. No matter how hard he shakes the Etch-A-Sketch over the summer, the airwaves will be saturated with his incendiary words — and that’s before the Dems even start on his suspect business record, his hucksterism, and stories of the people who suffered in his wake.
[...]
Hillary Clinton is far from beloved, to be sure, but the comparison obscures the chasm. Popularity numbers for each are underwater, and both have higher “very unfavorable” ratings than any other nominee on record. But if you think this is just a sign of an increasingly polarized era, a recent AP-Gfk survey is instructive. Hillary clocks in at minus-15 net favorability, with 38 percent reporting a “very unfavorable” view. Abysmal numbers, but downright golden next to Trump’s minus-43, with a whopping 56 percent of all adults viewing him very unfavorably. When more than half the country loathes you, you’re going to have a tough time making it up in volume.
[...]
And even if Trump himself proves Teflon, each ugly word and deed will be hung around the neck of every Republican on the ballot. The attacks will be smothering and relentless, and the press will grant no quarter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1096 May 06 2016 at 3:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Good points, although yes debates don't mean as much now, but soundbites (or similar things/memes like drinking a lot of water) from them might last longer. And Trump is actually better in some avenues even via liberal hopes: He opposes secretive trade agreements, possibly opposes foreign intervention more, and even though a rich white ******* seems actually more likely to hold a fire to Big Banks. There's a thought he may tack left on economic issues and such (taking over Sanders' criticisms) for the general and so paint Clinton as a friend of the 1%. And that actually wouldn't be wrong (imo). And might get some more votes.

And for all we know he might abandon or not mention his previous racism and other horribleness from the primary, but again, tack to issues common people could get with. He's not dumb. And is his own magic mirror on the wall, plus his own silly putty of very little real convictions.

Kind of like Clinton is actually. Who may win may depend on which does best at pretending to switch positions anew and/or draw fence-sitters. And how many voters might be sick of such **** or buy it. Voters are dumb though, mostly. Mostly.

Edited, May 6th 2016 6:04am by Palpitus1
#1097 May 06 2016 at 5:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Point is that he doesn't have to keep saying stupid or racist stuff, all of his previous stupid or racist stuff is going to get played again and again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1098 May 06 2016 at 5:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Point is that he doesn't have to keep saying stupid or racist stuff, all of his previous stupid or racist stuff is going to get played again and again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1099 May 06 2016 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Like your post...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1100 May 06 2016 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Like your post...
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#1101 May 06 2016 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: thumbsup my post...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 275 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (275)