Yep, especially when one depends on spin to rewrite it.
Republicans and marijuana
- Thread starter sandawg
- Start date
- Status
DB's chart point out a very good point.
Since Regan, the Republican Party has been the party of tax cuts only. That's it. Big spending and cutting taxes is called bullshit economics. It's a vote getting narrative that many people bought. YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL YOUR ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN CUT TAXES. That's a fundamental fiscal lie you've been sold.
The Democrats are big spenders, but at least try to offset that with taxes which has some semblance of fiscal responsibility.
You put them both together and you have one massive total government party that seesaws from tax cuts to hikes, but never does anything about spending and entitlement costs.
It's completely schizophrenic economics and politics. That's why no one feels like they are represented anymore. You are not.
We are fed propaganda to get votes for fairy tale bullshit that is unsustainable at every level of common sense, but the people aren't interested in common sense or country. Only themselves.
Since Regan, the Republican Party has been the party of tax cuts only. That's it. Big spending and cutting taxes is called bullshit economics. It's a vote getting narrative that many people bought. YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL YOUR ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN CUT TAXES. That's a fundamental fiscal lie you've been sold.
The Democrats are big spenders, but at least try to offset that with taxes which has some semblance of fiscal responsibility.
You put them both together and you have one massive total government party that seesaws from tax cuts to hikes, but never does anything about spending and entitlement costs.
It's completely schizophrenic economics and politics. That's why no one feels like they are represented anymore. You are not.
We are fed propaganda to get votes for fairy tale bullshit that is unsustainable at every level of common sense, but the people aren't interested in common sense or country. Only themselves.
BerndV
Member
These folks are not going to get a clue. They are the useful idiots of the modern progressive movement. For example, bar graphs representing the national debt under various presidential administrations are virtually meaningless. Those who possess the most rudimentary understanding of how the federal government works know that all spending bills are passed in the legislative branch, not the executive. A similar graph displaying spending versus congressional control (through fy 2009, not 2006) would be more appropriate.
I understand living the Democratic life sometimes means living the lie. With all due respect to Gramps, (because he's respectful AND respected) I feel like "tax and spend" is an undeserved mantra. We got the tax and spend label when Johnson passed his "great society" entitlements. That's when we actually had huge surpluses and CBO projections that forecasted solvency. Unfortunately, the Republican mantra "tax (cuts) and spend" wasn't in the contemporary lexicon and budget forecasters never dreamed the gipper and W would come along and give back tax money and substantially reduce tax rates at the top without taking back an even amount of entitlements. In fact, they added to entitlements. Entitlements that didn't receive the CBO green light for solvency. They pushed it to future deficits and national debt. In fact, they outspent growth on entitlements with military spending.
The next time Democrats had a shot at the controls, Clinton understood he couldn't take back entitlements so he reduced the size of government. Some of it had poor consequences (we now have to pay a profit for services we used to get at cost) but he had no choice.
In the end, Clinton proved fiscal governance isn't a fairy tale. He reduced the national debt to the lowest amount in decades and accumulated $236 billion in surplus. Further more, CBO verified something that never occurred in previous administrations since Johnson. Real deficits turned back into projected surpluses, so much so that projected surpluses were measured in trillions as opposed to deficits that once again are blamed on Democrats.
I also have to take exception to the idea we're all out for number one. Democrats have proven for decades they care about everybody, ie Johnson's social programs and Clinton's determination to reduce wasteful government as opposed to cutting entitlements. BTW, he really did reduce welfare roles for the poor but he didn't leave them helpless. Former welfare recipients received job training and employment placement as rewards for becoming responsible members of society.
So it's this Democrat's opinion that responsible government is real, not a fantasy. It just can't happen when the other side wants to drown the baby in a bathtub of illegitimacy.
It's not that Republicans think they can govern better. They just don't care about all the things that have to be considered when an alternative is on the table. They don't care about our segment of society that was born in a hole so deep they can't climb out. All they want is a little more money in their take home pay and they don't care about the consequences until they can find Democrats to blame it on.
IMO, Aristotle would recognize "tax and spend" as a boggeyman flag that flies only for those who disagree with Democratic policy regarding fiscal governance and social empathy. Again my opinion, if ol' Aristotle were around today, he'd remind non-Democratic idealists they're looking out for number one and not empathetic to the heath of the nation as a whole.
I didn't, that's part of big spending too. Big wars.
It's all one big joke for the history books. They are not going to be kind to us at all and least of all to Bush who really was just a monkey in suit.
Presidents are as responsible for their budgets as Congress. It is the presidency that economic experts press to reign in wasteful spending and lead the country in a path of fiscal responsibility. Presidents are supposed to lead. Sometimes, in the event of majority opposition, they have nothing but example but Clinton worked with the other side where he found compromise, not flippantly against anything the other side proposed.
Anybody that wishes to cherry pick bottom line analysis isn't looking at the facts. They only pick things that support their narrow conclusions.
You are kidding, right? You really are sick. You live in a world of delusion. You should look for pro help. You are the fucking cherry pick queen.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why you get statistical illustrations. It's a bottom line analysis, it doesn't have to take your wishes and beliefs into consideration to be historical fact.
Go watch FOXNEWS and quit wasting my time. And if you have a brain cell in your head, that my name off that stupid comment, lipshitz.
BerndV
Member
Hey DiscoBiscuit, thanks for my first negative rep! Coming from a pea brain like yourself, I consider it a compliment. You appear to make it a common practice to hand out negative rep to those with an otherwise 100% positive rating. I prefer to flush excrement down the toilet rather than play with it, so I won't be returning the favor. What goes around comes around.
edited because I'm a fair guy
Go back and read your post. If your rep is so stellar, why did you choose to disparage me personally? Because you opinion disagrees with mine. I suggest you choose your wording better or you might find more negative rep when you call peeps out the way you did here. That's why it's there, negative rep for negative worth.
I'd like how stuff like this substitutes for commentary on the subject. Too bad mods have to put up with charges of censorship or contributions like above might be less numerous.
I did seek help. In the form of a citation. A factual one at that. You can't find anything to support your assumptions even though you have an entire cable network to fall back on. It doesn't matter, your fun and joy comes from infighting with other members.
I have to admit though, it's fun to prove you wrong. Even if I don't resort to preemptive infighting.
BerndV
Member
Well DiscoBiscuit, I've re-read the post (see above) and I see no personal disparagement directed at you. Everything in the post represents a generalization. Notice the use of the plural pronouns "their", "them", as well as the plural "adherents". Using your contorted logic, every negative statement you have made about conservatives should be taken by me as a personal attack and thus given negative rep.
smokesalot420
Member
I was close to neg repping you because you used Glen Beck as an example.....
lol....
BerndV
Member
Why? I will reference a quote that is erroneously attributed to Voltaire but is nonetheless apt; "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
That's your prerogative, smokesalot. hoosier's laughing because he doesn't understand the joke's on Beck. It's only on hoosier when he falls in a hole.
- Status
