• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

He would submit a budget that cuts the deficit in half and maintains strict spending discipline

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
He would submit a budget that cuts the deficit in half and maintains strict spending discipline

From CNN front page.

Isn't this a contradicition of terms?



Does this signify the switch between complaining about the deficit being too large to complaining about him not spending enough?
 
i fail to see any contradiction. Disciplined spending will cause the deficit to decreae, and at the same time he wont cut so much that it undermines existing programs.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
He would submit a budget that cuts the deficit in half and maintains strict spending discipline

From CNN front page.

Isn't this a contradicition of terms?



Does this signify the switch between complaining about the deficit being too large to complaining about him not spending enough?

No, it signifies that Bush has gotten his tax cuts for the rich, blew his (our) wad on the war, and now whats to tighten things up, starting with SS.

Don't blame me, I never voted for the SOB either time.
 
The neo-cons (conservative socialists) now own the government, forget about any restraint on spending. If the conservative socialists continue to dominate, the entire federal government could implode within 20 years or it could be forced to sell off valuable assets to keep afloat. I would be happy if either event occurred. The sale of government assets would be a small step towards pure private property contractualism, as the amount of public spaces would be reduced, and more property would shift from the public sector where it is grossly mis-managed to the private sector where it will be put to it's best use.

Everybody cheer the neo-cons! If they keep things up, a large portion of the government could end up in private hands! :thumbsup:
 
dude, I think you're on crack!

saying Bush is a socialist has got to be one of the must BS things I've ever heard. The guy is more free market than any president since Reagan, he is not in any way in favor of government controlled industry.

Oh, and by the way, Kerry would be more socialist than Bush (Although still nowhere near real socialism) so I don't know who you voted for, probably some Nazi.

There really isn't much they could sell off anyway. You wanna buy the military. Sure, then when you neighbors dog won't shut up at 2am....
I suppose theirs some designed monopolies (power, etc.), but competition in those industries hurts consumers, and they are privately owned.

I closing, you should really take a politics class, so you know what the political classifications actually mean

Neo con is just a reference to a person who is strongly free markett and believes in government controll of social issues
 
Originally posted by: Feep
dude, I think you're on crack!

saying Bush is a socialist has got to be one of the must BS things I've ever heard. The guy is more free market than any president since Reagan, he is not in any way in favor of government controlled industry.

Oh, and by the way, Kerry would be more socialist than Bush (Although still nowhere near real socialism) so I don't know who you voted for, probably some Nazi.

There really isn't much they could sell off anyway. You wanna buy the military. Sure, then when you neighbors dog won't shut up at 2am....
I suppose theirs some designed monopolies (power, etc.), but competition in those industries hurts consumers, and they are privately owned.

I closing, you should really take a politics class, so you know what the political classifications actually mean

Neo con is just a reference to a person who is strongly free markett and believes in government controll of social issues


You're leaving out shredding the Constitution and Bill of Rights and starting pre-emptive illegal wars to further the U.S.'s military superiority.
 
wow, Another liberal crutch. Attacking my sentance structure instead of commenting on any info I presented.
 
here's the problem with cutting it in half: CBO already expected it to somehow be cut in half when predicting that we would cross $10 trillion debt in 10 years. that was based on $200-250 billion annual deficit figure

bush is just bringing it in line his fiscal apocalypse scenario

it's like the good news that the budget deficit was $413 billion, down $100 billion from an expected $500 billion. they tell you its good news but its not!

and "donald rumsfeld is doing a fine job"
 
Originally posted by: Feep
dude, I think you're on crack!

saying Bush is a socialist has got to be one of the must BS things I've ever heard. The guy is more free market than any president since Reagan, he is not in any way in favor of government controlled industry.

Oh, and by the way, Kerry would be more socialist than Bush (Although still nowhere near real socialism) so I don't know who you voted for, probably some Nazi.

There really isn't much they could sell off anyway. You wanna buy the military. Sure, then when you neighbors dog won't shut up at 2am....
I suppose theirs some designed monopolies (power, etc.), but competition in those industries hurts consumers, and they are privately owned.

I closing, you should really take a politics class, so you know what the political classifications actually mean

Neo con is just a reference to a person who is strongly free markett and believes in government controll of social issues

Neo-cons are strongly free market? Bwahahahaha! That really made my day. I have taken poly sci classes, 99% of all the stuff taught in them was completely bogus, not to mention useless.

The political classifications sound nice on paper, but in reality they don't hold a grain worth of salt. Bush is not a free market president, and Reagan wasn't either. I suggest you read the chapter in the book linked in my signature on conservative socialism. Conservative socialism is more alive today than ever. Unfortunately, a number of people still actually think the Republicans are the party of "less government."

If Bush is not in favor of government controlled industry then why do we still have the: FTC, FDA, OSHA, EPA, FAA, DEA, FCC...?
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Neo-cons are strongly free market? Bwahahahaha! That really made my day. I have taken poly sci classes, 99% of all the stuff taught in them was completely bogus, not to mention useless.

You're taken a few political science classes and think you know enough to say whether or not they were bogus?

The equivalent would be to take a few intro to engineering classes and then tell an engineer his design was bogus.

Nice.
 
all of those are regulatory bodies created by other presidents. They are not covernment owned industries, they are basic consumer protections that we clearly need (Read the Jungle if you dont believe me)

No one is saying that the government should do nothing economically, at least not any sane people.

You are just completley off the wall. Its odd how many people bash bush for his tax cuts to the rich, while you are saying his a socialist. It doesnt add up.

Bush is very free markett, you are just off the spectrum in your lazzie Faire ways, so you can't see that

*good point centinel
 
If Bush is not in favor of government controlled industry then why do we still have the: FTC, FDA, OSHA, EPA, FAA, DEA, FCC...?

FCC handing the airwaves to monopolies. even powell's son, powell, is resigning, a good thing.

FDA in bed with the pharm industry. Vioxx/Bextra/Celebrax, its not even funny.

DEA we are winning the war on drugs.
DoHLD: we are winning the war on terror.
OSHA: we are winning the war on safety.

EPA is not even a joke. its not even funny.


so the only agency that has done anything competent was the FTC with its do not call list. that is the only accomplishment of this administration.
 
its pretty narrowminded to claim that the administration has done nothing but set up a do not call list
 
"saying Bush is a socialist has got to be one of the must BS things I've ever heard. The guy is more free market than any president since Reagan, he is not in any way in favor of government controlled industry. "


What about "tort reform" ? It's essentially socialism for corporations.

 
again, just an example of Bush not being purely free market. Peope should be open to considering idea and how they will effect the nation even if those ideas are not something traditionally supported by their political party
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Neo-cons are strongly free market? Bwahahahaha! That really made my day. I have taken poly sci classes, 99% of all the stuff taught in them was completely bogus, not to mention useless.

You're taken a few political science classes and think you know enough to say whether or not they were bogus?

The equivalent would be to take a few intro to engineering classes and then tell an engineer his design was bogus.

Nice.

Well, I still have the textbook which is called The Challenge of Democracy which basically consists of a bunch of bogus propaganda. Although, it did have some interesting stuff on current events.

Yes, I do know enough to say that they were bogus, because I happen to know now that the social contract theory stuff that was taught in them is a complete fiction, and also that the entire government is an unnecessary evil.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Neo-cons are strongly free market? Bwahahahaha! That really made my day. I have taken poly sci classes, 99% of all the stuff taught in them was completely bogus, not to mention useless.

You're taken a few political science classes and think you know enough to say whether or not they were bogus?

The equivalent would be to take a few intro to engineering classes and then tell an engineer his design was bogus.

Nice.

Well, I still have the textbook which is called The Challenge of Democracy which basically consists of a bunch of bogus propaganda. Although, it did have some interesting stuff on current events.

Yes, I do know enough to say that they were bogus, because I happen to know now that the social contract theory stuff that was taught in them is a complete fiction, and also that the entire government is an unnecessary evil.

And just how do you know this all? What justification do you make to say all social contract theory is bogus? Have you even read Hobbes? Locke? Rousseau? Marx?

....and government is an unecessary evil? Refute Hobbes then.

 
Honestly anarchy would rock.

I'd walk up to the people that are anarchy proponents, shoot them, take their things, and then let them ponder the true meaning of anarchy while I enjoy all their hard earned things while they slowly bleed to death.

😀
 
Back
Top