Bush I and Bush II spending and infringement upon civil liberties wise. When it's a Democrat, massive spending is good and having Arab Spring take place and fail under your watch is also good. When a Republican does it and spends a ton on social programs and has Iraq turn into a massive hellhole, he's branded as the new Hitler on all sides of the aisle. What's not to get? It's plainly obvious if you're not bound by part lines or inconsequential labels like "liberal" or "conservative," which both had completely different meanings in the past. It seems to me that at certain times, it's better to have a Democrat president in power and at other times, a Republican would have been best depending on who controls Congress, the Senate, and the House and who you have serving on the Supreme Court.
Exactly, Roberto, and the Clinton-Gingrich odd-couple pairing in the 1990s was a perfect example of it; limited spending, budget surpluses (no, not technically, dmarks, I agree), peace and prosperity, etc..
To be elected in todays America you must be a spender.
Half the population have evolved into "takers."
The country is no longer the home of "The American Dream."
Do any of you honestly think a politician could get elected today saying "Ask not what the country can do for you,ask what you can do for your country?" The media and special intrest groups would kill them.
Take a good look at the Greeks....thats going to be us in 20 years.
This is the new normal...8% unemployment,living on borrowed money,half the population paying zero federal income tax,half the population receiving some kind of federal assistance,47 million on food stamps.
Rusty, I agree, being an advocate of Objectivism. However, the million dollar question is... Are the people takers by nature or have the politician turned them into takers?
There's certainly an element of truth in what the Russster is saying. I remember back in '92 when Tsongas was giving the people straight-talk on entitlements and Clinton pandered his way all the way to the nomination and well beyond (having said that I still think that Clinton was a much better President than his 2 successors).
You wont hear me disagree Will.It seems as if all levels of society and business are more then willing to embrace a handout.
GE,as you've metioned is one of the biggest offenders....all levels of Americans have their hands out in our new country.
This week was sickening when Gov.Christie lambasted the Congress for not approving a bill for Super Storm Sandy that was filled with pork spending....a fucking roof for the Smithsonium, A fishery in Alaska?
The American people elect these people and then re-elect them so I guess they have no reason to bitch and moan about the results.
These fuckers in the house and senate make me want to puke,no matter what party.All they care about is being re-elected.A pox on all their houses.
G.E. is a triple offender. They get every single loophole in the business, bailout money, AND a bunch of crony capitalism/stimulus money. Mr. Obama needs to get rid of clowns like Imelt and Geithner and put Erskine Bowles in charge.
Roberto said: "When a Republican does it and spends a ton on social programs and has Iraq turn into a massive hellhole"
More like, turn FROM a massive hellhole. Saddam was killing tens of thousands per year in mass executions and using other methods. Those days are long past, and the death toll in Iraq approaches something comparable to the crime rate in Los Angeles County.
13 comments:
Bush I and Bush II spending and infringement upon civil liberties wise. When it's a Democrat, massive spending is good and having Arab Spring take place and fail under your watch is also good. When a Republican does it and spends a ton on social programs and has Iraq turn into a massive hellhole, he's branded as the new Hitler on all sides of the aisle. What's not to get? It's plainly obvious if you're not bound by part lines or inconsequential labels like "liberal" or "conservative," which both had completely different meanings in the past. It seems to me that at certain times, it's better to have a Democrat president in power and at other times, a Republican would have been best depending on who controls Congress, the Senate, and the House and who you have serving on the Supreme Court.
Exactly, Roberto, and the Clinton-Gingrich odd-couple pairing in the 1990s was a perfect example of it; limited spending, budget surpluses (no, not technically, dmarks, I agree), peace and prosperity, etc..
To be elected in todays America you must be a spender.
Half the population have evolved into "takers."
The country is no longer the home of "The American Dream."
Do any of you honestly think a politician could get elected today
saying "Ask not what the country can do for you,ask what you can do for your country?" The media and special intrest groups would kill them.
Take a good look at the Greeks....thats going to be us in 20 years.
This is the new normal...8% unemployment,living on borrowed money,half the population paying zero federal income tax,half the population receiving some kind of federal assistance,47 million on food stamps.
Rusty, I agree, being an advocate of Objectivism. However, the million dollar question is... Are the people takers by nature or have the politician turned them into takers?
I know where I stand.
There's certainly an element of truth in what the Russster is saying. I remember back in '92 when Tsongas was giving the people straight-talk on entitlements and Clinton pandered his way all the way to the nomination and well beyond (having said that I still think that Clinton was a much better President than his 2 successors).
Of course the politicians have turned,or should I say enabled them to be takers RN.
Once you give the average American something not only cant you take it back,in most cases they will hold their hand out for more.
Its a shame,but thats what this country has evolved into.
I would simply add that it isn't just poor people, Russ. Banks, corporations, and millionaire farmers are also putting snouts in the trough.
You wont hear me disagree Will.It seems as if all levels of society and business are more then willing to embrace a handout.
GE,as you've metioned is one of the biggest offenders....all levels of Americans have their hands out in our new country.
This week was sickening when Gov.Christie lambasted the Congress for not approving a bill for Super Storm Sandy that was filled with pork spending....a fucking roof for the Smithsonium, A fishery in Alaska?
The American people elect these people and then re-elect them so I guess they have no reason to bitch and moan about the results.
These fuckers in the house and senate make me want to puke,no matter what party.All they care about is being re-elected.A pox on all their houses.
Smithsonian.....I fucking spelled it wrong.
G.E. is a triple offender. They get every single loophole in the business, bailout money, AND a bunch of crony capitalism/stimulus money. Mr. Obama needs to get rid of clowns like Imelt and Geithner and put Erskine Bowles in charge.
Will,if you honestly think Obama would ever even consider bringing Erskine Bowles near the inner circle you're living in OZ.
You're probably right, Russ. You're probably right.
Roberto said: "When a Republican does it and spends a ton on social programs and has Iraq turn into a massive hellhole"
More like, turn FROM a massive hellhole. Saddam was killing tens of thousands per year in mass executions and using other methods. Those days are long past, and the death toll in Iraq approaches something comparable to the crime rate in Los Angeles County.
Post a Comment