Politics through the mind of a liberal.

[KGB]

Because the conservatives have all the money?

 

[zinfamous]

If you believe that then you are an idiot.

If the liberals care so much then why do conservatives out give them when it comes to charities?

Liberals only care about stuff so long as they can use others people's money to care about it...

charities? so, like--Focus on the Family vs programs aimed at poverty and education?

:hmm:

such a vague and unsourced statement you have made there...

 

[bfdd]

i would say, the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is...

the liberals, care about the whole planet, everyone on the planet, regardless of country..

the conservatives, care about themselves, and think the governments should be focused on letting them succeed, at all cost.. if they are capabable.. but because not everyone is mentally/physically capable.. this hurts the vast majority.. sad that some people just do not care about the rest of the people on this planet.. we should BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET... not have peasants, and elite.. i would gladly give up my socioeconomic staus (middle upper class) if everyone else in the world, could just have food, and shelter....and mental well-being.

That's a load of fucking shit. "liberals" care only about themselves as well, they just pretend they give a fuck about others. banning guns isn't to protect everyone else, it's to protect them from you. because if you don't have a gun you can't shoot them. most "liberals" tend to be scared children who were sheltered their entire lives. I'm not saying "conservatives" are better, they aren't, but you trying to make it seem like anyone identifying with groupthink and "party" is thinking of anyone but themselves you're a fucking retard.

People only group think to protect themselves because they don't believe they can or they can't truly protect themselves by themselves. Scared children identify themselves as "liberals", "conservatives", etc

 

[ProfJohn]

"This paragraph is a bunch of baloney. The Democrats do want to reign in spending, just not the spending you want. Hence, you ignored that part. We would also not have been downgraded as per my other response. The Democrats wanted the more long term fix that included a much bigger deficit reduction package, which may have actually avoided the S&P downgrade. Also, you have invented a time machine?"
Proof of this?

1. Obama's budget called for MORE spending.
2. The vast majority of Democrats voted for a clean debt bill which meant NO cuts.


There is absolutely NO evidence at all that Democrats were interested in cutting the size of government or cutting government spending prior to the GOP take over last fall.

Find me some statement by Democrats leaders prior to last falls election where they talked about the need to cut government spending and debt.

 

[trenchfoot]

"This paragraph is a bunch of baloney. The Democrats do want to reign in spending, just not the spending you want. Hence, you ignored that part. We would also not have been downgraded as per my other response. The Democrats wanted the more long term fix that included a much bigger deficit reduction package, which may have actually avoided the S&P downgrade. Also, you have invented a time machine?"
Proof of this?

1. Obama's budget called for MORE spending.
2. The vast majority of Democrats voted for a clean debt bill which meant NO cuts.


There is absolutely NO evidence at all that Democrats were interested in cutting the size of government or cutting government spending prior to the GOP take over last fall.

Find me some statement by Democrats leaders prior to last falls election where they talked about the need to cut government spending and debt.

Neither were the repubs until they decided it was a good strategy to get rid of Obama. Until then the repubs were just blowing smoke up their base's butts by saying one thing and doing just the opposite (Bush 2000-2008)

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"This paragraph is a bunch of baloney. The Democrats do want to reign in spending, just not the spending you want. Hence, you ignored that part. We would also not have been downgraded as per my other response. The Democrats wanted the more long term fix that included a much bigger deficit reduction package, which may have actually avoided the S&P downgrade. Also, you have invented a time machine?"
Proof of this?

1. Obama's budget called for MORE spending.
2. The vast majority of Democrats voted for a clean debt bill which meant NO cuts.


There is absolutely NO evidence at all that Democrats were interested in cutting the size of government or cutting government spending prior to the GOP take over last fall.

Find me some statement by Democrats leaders prior to last falls election where they talked about the need to cut government spending and debt.

You keep twisting things and wordings to sound more valid. The Democrats wanted a clean debt ceiling vote because it has nothing to do with budget amendments. Cuts, revenue agreements in future have nothing to do with raising the current debt limit because Congress already spent the money. You keep ignoring this fact. Is it because you don't understand what that means? Would you like it explained more precisely for your level of learning deficiency? You have presented nothing but your twisting of reality to suit your sheeplike way of thinking.

They said for years the bush tax cuts need to end. That would have reduced deficit spending. Why doesn't that count in your mind?

 

[ProfJohn]

A clean debt bill would have meant a downgrade. Period.

 

[ProfJohn]

They said for years the bush tax cuts need to end. That would have reduced deficit spending. Why doesn't that count in your mind?

Tax cuts are NOT spending.

Plus the Bush tax cuts are only costing us $100 billion a YEAR.
Right now we are adding $110 billion a MONTH to the debt.

We are going to add $1.3 trillion to the debt this year. That is more than the TEN year cost of the Bush tax cuts. That is also more than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0711.pdf
We have already added $1 trillion to the debt this year and we still have two months to go.
By time the FY year ends we will have added $1.6 trillion to the debt.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would still leave us with $1.5 trillion in debt.

 

[Engineer]

Tax cuts are NOT spending.

Plus the Bush tax cuts are only costing us $100 billion a YEAR.
Right now we are adding $110 billion a MONTH to the debt.

We are going to add $1.3 trillion to the debt this year. That is more than the TEN year cost of the Bush tax cuts. That is also more than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0711.pdf
We have already added $1 trillion to the debt this year and we still have two months to go.
By time the FY year ends we will have added $1.6 trillion to the debt.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would still leave us with $1.5 trillion in debt.

Well there you go then. You don't want to end the Bush tax cuts because it is ONLY $110 billion per year. Someone else doesn't want to end XX program because it only costs $100 billion per year. Someone else doesn't want to end YY Military project which ONLY costs $75 billion. Until we get EVERYONE on the same page that ALL parts of spending cuts and tax raises lower the deficit, we'll never get anywhere.

Take a note that Italy took on painful spending cuts AND tax increases over the last few days to get the deficit down.

But in our case...every idea is an "ONLY" idea......

Besides, I thought you liked the idea or RAISING taxes on the 45% who don't pay federal taxes. Just raise them on everyone (while getting rid of programs like EIC) and call it a day, right?

If we have the services and nobody will cut the services, then we should pay for the services instead of borrowing money....

Not even close. You want the service then you pay the fair cost of said service.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Tax cuts are NOT spending.

Plus the Bush tax cuts are only costing us $100 billion a YEAR.
Right now we are adding $110 billion a MONTH to the debt.

We are going to add $1.3 trillion to the debt this year. That is more than the TEN year cost of the Bush tax cuts. That is also more than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0711.pdf
We have already added $1 trillion to the debt this year and we still have two months to go.
By time the FY year ends we will have added $1.6 trillion to the debt.

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on EVERYONE would still leave us with $1.5 trillion in debt.

Simple yes or no question if you can handle that. Do you understand that the debt ceiling increase has absolutely nothing to do with future budgetary considerations or the credit rating of the United States? That would have been impacted by previous budgets, spending bills etc...?

 

[jman19]

Troll thread by a troll.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tax cuts are NOT spending.

Of course they're not. The way the Bush cuts are structured, they're giveaways to America's wealthiest, even as his political heirs want to cut the spending that benefits the rest of the population, particularly in a near depression.

If we cut taxes at the top in expectation of "Job Creation", we should reasonably expect for that to occur, but it hasn't. The opposite has happened since 2008, and it's highly debatable that employment gains in the previous 5 years were due to tax cuts at all.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/08/13/opinion/081311krugman3/081311krugman3-blog480.jpg

That particular chart is fairly typical & was selected because it was easy to find. Hey! That Texas miracle is, uhh, not really a miracle at all, either, is it?

Here's what hte bush cuts look like in charts & graphic form-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

What those cuts actually did was to fuel the greatest speculative bubble in the history of finance, and now starve the govt of funds needed to offset the debt/deflation spiral now occurring in the aftermath.

Job creation in the private sector simply is not occurring at a rate sufficient to create recovery at all, so there's no point in thinking that continued low taxes will accomplish that. Raising taxes will, however, increase revenues, despite all the right wing economic voodoo witch doctor chants to the contrary. They're the same witch doctors who claimed there was no housing bubble, after all...

And you're pulling numbers out of your ass, PJ- the source above puts the cost of all the Bush cuts at ~$287B for 2010. If you have another source that might be vaguely credible, which I doubt, post it.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the liberals care so much then why do conservatives out give them when it comes to charities?.

Becuase the Republicans need to the tax write offs

 

[MovingTarget]

Neither were the repubs until they decided it was a good strategy to get rid of Obama. Until then the repubs were just blowing smoke up their base's butts by saying one thing and doing just the opposite (Bush 2000-2008)

Bingo. Everyone knows that when given the chance, Republicans don't give 2¢ about reducing the size of government. Many conservatives crow about the "But Bush" argument because they know its the only argument that is needed to show their side doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, etc. Besides, a government that is too small can be just as economically damaging to a government that is too big. The small vs. big government debate misses the point entirely. It should be about efficiency and effectiveness, not size.

You could cut every entitlement there is and they'd be just as happy increasing defense or corporate subsidies at the same levels that those entitlements were cut. Again, it is about cutting spending that they want to cut, not just cutting spending where it is appropriate and advantageous for the average American. Remember the "Gang of Six" deal that Obama endorsed that included cuts to entitlements amongst $3T of total cuts? And the ~$1T in increased revenues via tax reforms? $4T in deficit reduction measures were proposed, which is much larger than what passed by Boehner, yet it was shot down before it saw the light of day because of the revenue portion.

If you want to balance the budget over the long term and restart growth, you must:

a) Cut nonessential spending and subsidies to programs that have a low economic multiplier effect
b) Raise taxes, preferably on those with a lower propensity to spend (i.e. the investor class)
c) Increase spending on capital infrastructure creation (to ensure future growth)
d) Overhaul regulation of the financial markets to reduce boom/bust cycles and reduce activities that are economically harmful/parasitic
e) Take a long, hard look at our trade deficit, and finally institute a trade policy that is conducive to domestic manufacturing.

Fiscal conservatives don't seem to be amenable to any of this, instead relying on the voodoo economics of the eighties. It isn't going to work this time.

 

[trenchfoot]

Becuase the Republicans need to the tax write offs

And the very rich need LOTS and LOTS of tax write-offs, and the middle class and the poor have to spend their limited monies on food, rent, their children's college tuition, car and home insurance and mortgages so by that time they don't have that much to give to charities.

 

[Rainsford]

There's something that's just...wrong...about defining politics exclusively through demonizing and exaggerating the points of view of those you disagree with. Why can't liberals and conservatives mainly be well meaning folks with different ideas as to how to address the problems of the day? Hell, why can't most "liberals" and "conservatives" be far more politically complex than overly simplistic labels?

I don't mean to single out ProfJohn here...he's by no means the only person who does this. The whole political commentary establishment is basically built on this. But why do we so stupidly accept that it makes sense for political discussion to be conducted like this?

 

[MovingTarget]

There's something that's just...wrong...about defining politics exclusively through demonizing and exaggerating the points of view of those you disagree with. Why can't liberals and conservatives mainly be well meaning folks with different ideas as to how to address the problems of the day? Hell, why can't most "liberals" and "conservatives" be far more politically complex than overly simplistic labels?

I don't mean to single out ProfJohn here...he's by no means the only person who does this. The whole political commentary establishment is basically built on this. But why do we so stupidly accept that it makes sense for political discussion to be conducted like this?

You are correct, Rainsford. I'm guilty of it as well. Even looking at my posts in this thread, there's a lot of "conservatives this, conservatives that". It is quite hard for me to rail against conservatives precisely because I used to be one of them myself. But, even for most ardent conservatives I've met in real life (lets face it, I'm from Alabama...they aren't hard to come by), we tend to agree more than we disagree. Common ground exists, especially when you speak more to specific situations and remedies instead of broader generalizations and trite, meaningless platitudes that we see on cable news. Its just....difficult....when the entire premise of a thread is steeped in terms like "through the mind of a liberal" like it means something more than cheap branding and sloganeering. It poisons the rhetoric/debate.

 

[Thump553]

There's something that's just...wrong...about defining politics exclusively through demonizing and exaggerating the points of view of those you disagree with. Why can't liberals and conservatives mainly be well meaning folks with different ideas as to how to address the problems of the day? Hell, why can't most "liberals" and "conservatives" be far more politically complex than overly simplistic labels?

I don't mean to single out ProfJohn here...he's by no means the only person who does this. The whole political commentary establishment is basically built on this. But why do we so stupidly accept that it makes sense for political discussion to be conducted like this?

Very well said.

 

[zinfamous]

There's something that's just...wrong...about defining politics exclusively through demonizing and exaggerating the points of view of those you disagree with. Why can't liberals and conservatives mainly be well meaning folks with different ideas as to how to address the problems of the day? Hell, why can't most "liberals" and "conservatives" be far more politically complex than overly simplistic labels?

I don't mean to single out ProfJohn here...he's by no means the only person who does this. The whole political commentary establishment is basically built on this. But why do we so stupidly accept that it makes sense for political discussion to be conducted like this?

that's more than 200 years of populist politicking that you're hoping to move away from.

Such antics have proven time and time again to get people elected, even the woefully unqualified (Harding, Taylor, Bush the 2nd...). Sadly, I just don't see it happening.

I believe that Jefferson v. Adams remains the dirtiest campaign in US history. --or Jackson v Van Buren? Jackson's wife "died from the stress spawned from that venomous campaign." ...I think that's BS, of course. She probably just had the vapors.

 

[Red Dawn]

And the very rich need LOTS and LOTS of tax write-offs, and the middle class and the poor have to spend their limited monies on food, rent, their children's college tuition, car and home insurance and mortgages so by that time they don't have that much to give to charities.

Well you have to admit the the Republicans are good at convincing people to vote against their best interest.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well you have to admit the the Republicans are good at convincing people to vote against their best interest.

God, guns & Gays! will carry a fair % of the electorate every time. Throw in a liberal sprinkling of Spidey-type raving about welfare queens, taxes, ebil soshulists taking away your medicare and so forth for teh Win! in many locales...

Dems try to get people to vote with the big head on their shoulders, while Repubs try to get people to vote with the small head on their penises, the one that has no brain cells...