Obama's speech in Cairo


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby ranunculus » Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:31 am

TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.

Have fun though.

Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.

Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.

Can there be peace on Earth?

As "liberal" as it may sound...

Eh...maybe...from time to time..

But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.

I have a sandwhich.

You want half?


Paulthefan will dismiss your post as a "wishful liberal ranting", but I, as well as many others here agree and applaud you.
ranunculus
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 2:27 pm
Location: in them thar southern hills

Postby Vince » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:03 am

TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.

Have fun though.

Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.

Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.

Can there be peace on Earth?

As "liberal" as it may sound...

Eh...maybe...from time to time..

But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.

I have a sandwhich.

You want half?


Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating. So Capitalism is now the liberals evil de jour.

I say working until April(for now) just to pay for the politicos grand utopian delusions and unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration will suck the sandwich out of generations of tax payers to come.
Peace to all.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:12 am

Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

Vince wrote:Peace to all.


Agreed :D .
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby bad hammy » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:40 am

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:01 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .


Exactly. In general, I'd suggest that a little more attention to the FACTS and a lot less ideological ranting is in order.
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:15 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .


And how does the democratic led congress fit into all (open your eyes) of this and how does increasing the national debt 4 times over the previous solve this?

If you think that overspending led us to this economy, then I am sure the right answer to fix it is to quadruple (or more) the problem.

Great logic!!!!
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Postby Pego » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:23 am

odelltrclan wrote:how does the democratic led congress fit into all (open your eyes)


Fine, another facts check. The Congress was Republican controlled until the fall elections of 2006.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Vince » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:03 am

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

Vince wrote:Peace to all.


Agreed :D .


Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.

Peace to the haters.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:22 am

Vince wrote:
Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating.


Of course not.

You want it all for yourself.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:12 am

ranunculus wrote:
TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.

Have fun though.

Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.

Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.

Can there be peace on Earth?

As "liberal" as it may sound...

Eh...maybe...from time to time..

But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.

I have a sandwhich.

You want half?


Paulthefan will dismiss your post as a "wishful liberal ranting", but I, as well as many others here agree and applaud you.


Ill gladly share my sandwich with you, but please dont bring 5 others with contempt for me and my mores, to the table that you have promised my half of the sandwich to.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:16 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .


proof that too many economics courses taught by communists can rot your brain. To your credit you did manage to get the "increased government spending" part right.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Pego » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:54 am

Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

Vince wrote:Peace to all.


Agreed :D .


Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.

Peace to the haters.


I looked it up. Here are the numbers.
Deficit at the end of 2000 - 5,674B
2008 - 10,699.8B
Third quarter of 2009 - 11,383B

I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.

What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby deca-pat » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:33 pm

http://sites.google.com/site/easyopinionsfiles/Home/easyoattach/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

This is a CBO "Projected Deficits" analysis. What I find interesting is the decreased spending taking place after 2004.
deca-pat
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:31 pm

Pego wrote:I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.

What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.


agree in part, Reagan had to choose his battles carefully. After roughly 45+ years of liberal domestic policy some things were off limits.

The real problem conservatives have with liberals on this issue is that the liberal answer to republican hypocrisy on spending is: "get the democrats in there to spend 3x as much". Can this republic survive these two parties ?
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby ndamix » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:30 pm

paulthefan wrote:
Pego wrote:I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.

What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.


agree in part, Reagan had to choose his battles carefully. After roughly 45+ years of liberal domestic policy some things were off limits.

The real problem conservatives have with liberals on this issue is that the liberal answer to republican hypocrisy on spending is: "get the democrats in there to spend 3x as much". Can this republic survive these two parties ?
Not with Michael Steele supposedly in charge of the GOP.
ndamix
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Where I Have My Eye On You

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:38 pm

lonewolf wrote:I can't hold it till free speech month. :x
Am I the only person here who is not enchanted by Obama and is alarmed by his politcs or is it I am the only one not afraid to dissent?
Apparently praising Obama is not politcal but criticizing him is???? :?


I think you are getting it.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby rasb » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:08 pm

Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Vince » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:26 pm

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

Vince wrote:Peace to all.


Agreed :D .


Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.

Peace to the haters.


I looked it up. Here are the numbers.
Deficit at the end of 2000 - 5,674B
2008 - 10,699.8B
Third quarter of 2009 - 11,383B

I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.

What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.


So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:36 pm

TrackDaddy wrote:
Vince wrote:
Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating.


Of course not.

You want it all for yourself.


Nope, that would be your like minded friends in office, who would in turn give it to someone who had voted for them, after they took a bite for themselves.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:38 pm

rasb wrote:Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...


that is touching.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Pego » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:43 pm

Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B
Last edited by Pego on Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby rasb » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:03 pm

paulthefan wrote:
rasb wrote:Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...


that is touching.


Hey Paulie,
My friend, you cute little moonbat, you :)
I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you...
You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good
than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby paulthefan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:36 pm

rasb wrote:
paulthefan wrote:that is touching.
Hey Paulie,
My friend, you cute little moonbat, you :)
I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you...
You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good
than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...


why would we need reconciliation when we are already dear friends!.. Ill treat for lunch someday.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby rasb » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:48 pm

paulthefan wrote:
rasb wrote:
paulthefan wrote:that is touching.
Hey Paulie,
My friend, you cute little moonbat, you :)
I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you...
You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good
than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...


why would we need reconciliation when we are already dear friends!.. Ill treat for lunch someday.


That is a deal, bud. We can share a sandwich. What do you think 75/25?
:wink:
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Vince » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:50 pm

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B


Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.

Peace to the Accountants.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:52 pm

paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?


AMEN!!!!

Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.

The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Postby rasb » Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:14 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?


AMEN!!!!

Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.

The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.


That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby kuha » Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:25 pm

rasb wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?


AMEN!!!!

Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.

The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.


That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....


Exactly...I got a severe case of conceptual whiplash reading that...
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:42 pm

kuha wrote:
rasb wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?


AMEN!!!!

Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.

The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.


That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....


Exactly...I got a severe case of conceptual whiplash reading that...


Sorry, I hit the return button too quick... But I am sure you could have figured it out. He is going to get us past the point of no return real fast.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:23 pm

Vince wrote:
TrackDaddy wrote:
Vince wrote:
Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating.


Of course not.

You want it all for yourself.


Nope, that would be your like minded friends in office, who would in turn give it to someone who had voted for them, after they took a bite for themselves.


It's called sharing.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby Pego » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:12 am

Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B


Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.

Peace to the Accountants.


Yes, my mistake, one of those senior moments :oops: . On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Daisy » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:16 am

Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.

At least the ones in charge of the money. I seem to remember quite a few republicans complaining about Bush's budgets.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:00 am

Daisy wrote:
Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.

At least the ones in charge of the money. I seem to remember quite a few republicans complaining about Bush's budgets.


But not very loudly, or effectively...
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:35 am

Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


Can you give us another word for those that lean towards limited and fiscally restrained govt?... if you can start using the new word you have in mind maybe everyone will adopt it. Until then folks call such people conservatives. They may never get in power or be able to exercise unrestrained control but for now there is no other name for them.

The last chance we had to test your myth was the "compassionate" conservative GWB. But a "conservative" would say a "compassionate" conservative is a euphemism for a liberal.


Pego wrote: The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age). I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


arguable among the editorial board at the NYT or Nation magazine. Pego, do some reading, your text reads a bit partisan. There are probably a dozen admins that were more conservative than the last one and in the 20th century the Coolidge admin was Ebenizer Scrooge compared the the compassionate Santa Claus Bush.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Vince » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:35 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .


Actually the facts are the economy has sunk to Carter-era levels.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:54 am

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B


Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.

Peace to the Accountants.



Yes, my mistake, one of those senior moments :oops: . On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


1st of all, the war starting, free spending, royal hand holding previous administration was nothing close to being Conservative. 2nd if you had a problem with the over spending part of it, you must have a problem with the current administrations doubling down on the deficit/debt. Who's doing the feigning here?

Peace to all the feigners. :wink:
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:06 am

paulthefan wrote:
Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


Can you give us another word for those that lean towards limited and fiscally restrained govt?... if you can start using the new word you have in mind maybe everyone will adopt it. Until then folks call such people conservatives. They may never get in power or be able to exercise unrestrained control but for now there is no other name for them.

The last chance we had to test your myth was the "compassionate" conservative GWB. But a "conservative" would say a "compassionate" conservative is a euphemism for a liberal.




Pego wrote: The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age). I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


arguable on among the editorial board at the NYT or Nation magazine. Pego, do some reading, your text reads a bit partisan. There are probably a dozen admins that were more conservative than the last one and in the 20th century the Coolidge admin was Ebenizer Scrooge compared the the compassionate Bush admin.

I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:20 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism.


Bingo! It is completely useless to conflate the two terms--both are rather "flexible" in definition, but they are NOT describing equal things. I, frankly, would be quite comfortable as an Eisenhower-era conservative--which has just about NOTHING to do with a BushII-era Republican.
kuha
 
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.



Again you fail to see what you dont want to believe and therby reverse the facts. Actually conservatism would include all of the particular wedge issues you list. Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time, that is why conservatives, generally speaking, favor school prayer and strict abortion laws. Liberal abortions laws handed down by black robed judges would fail the test of conservatism. Conservatives were never terribly interested in codifying gay rights. They were interested in ensuring that a traditional institution (marriage) stay traditional. Is that a surprise?. The Republican party leadership has never really been excited about wedge issues. They will use them to get conservatives on board but their heart is not in it. The GOP leadership is not unlike the Dem leadership. If the left side of those wedge issues is where you stand then you would be far more repulsed by conservatives than by republicans. No doubt you would probably get along marvelously at a gop fund-raiser.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Pego » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:18 pm

paulthefan wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.



Again you fail to see what you dont want to believe and therby reverse the facts. Actually conservatism would include all of the particular wedge issues you list. Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time, that is why conservatives, generally speaking, favor school prayer and strict abortion laws. Liberal abortions laws handed down by black robed judges would fail the test of conservatism. Conservatives were never terribly interested in codifying gay rights. They were interested in ensuring that a traditional institution (marriage) stay traditional. Is that a surprise?. The Republican party leadership has never really been excited about wedge issues. They will use them to get conservatives on board but their heart is not in it. The GOP leadership is not unlike the Dem leadership. Chances are you would be far more repulsed by conservatives than by republicans.


I put "conservative" in quotes, simply because of what is now being referred to as "conservative" contains nothing conservative.
Conservative in every other area of life means restrain (fiscal, interpersonal relations, international affairs). A conservative physician does not jump immediately at risky, fashionable treatments, a conservative banker does not issue a 1/2 milllion mortgage to somebody making $30000/year etc. Conservative social policy to me would be to respect the individual's rights, not phone tapping without court order, trying to police women's reproduction, or insist that the individual can legally cohabitate with only 50% of the population. Today, those issues are considered "liberal advocacy".

Paul, you asked about what are the conservative politicians in my opinion. I can't think of any. To me, right wing does not equate conservative, but that is what the current synonyms appear to be.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest