-
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.
Would you support the next President if they championed massive spending cuts?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
:laugh:
I was laughing so hard after reading that I couldn't keep going.
The government is a bloated, overpriced mess whose only purpose is to grow larger and eat up more money in an effort to appear necessary. It is the car that Homer Simpson designed. It's a Rube Goldberg machine of galactic proportions. In it's current state (Starting around WWII) it is the single biggest drain on society there is.
Small, cheap, efficient government helps people. This government is the opposite of helpful (not to mention small, cheap and efficient). And shame on you for stating that Bush is the reason young people have no faith in government. This started LONG before Bush was in office. Those hippi, err, young folks in the 60's sure trused the government. :roll:
When people start looking to the government before they look to themselves, you get what we have... eleventy brazillian in debt and a three trillion dollar nut to crack every year. You can trace the bloat all the way back to FDR and his New Deal. While it may have been well intentioned and somewhat effective in its time, it spawned the philosophy that government is the answer to all our woes.
It's amazing to me that the thought of cutting even a small percentage... or a fraction of a percentage off the budget is horrific to some people. States do it. Why cant the fed?
theeedude
Lifer
I am sure conservatives think it's a complete coincidence that America emerged as a global superpower and economic powerhouse since the New Deal and through periods of huge government spending that have followed. I am sure you think all the big spending on infrastructure, science, education, etc, had nothing to do with it.
Vic
Elite Member
Amazing false dilemma partisan logic you have here. So how do you explain why the Soviet Union collapsed? Or why China didn't become powerful until it allowed private enterprise?
Oh sh!t, that must mean that the solution to our problems is not as child-like simple and easy as you would have us believe! :Q
I think Craig234 is just going for comic effect anymore, judging by his recent posts.
Gov't is little more than a stick used by one group to bludgeon another. So would you rather get hit with a big stick, or a small one? People like Craig234 who praise gov't in theory while simultaneously bitching about the abuses of power of gov't in practice are either hopelessly naive or incapable of learning from experience.
JD50
Lifer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure conservatives think it's a complete coincidence that America emerged as a global superpower and economic powerhouse since the New Deal and through periods of huge government spending that have followed. I am sure you think all the big spending on infrastructure, science, education, etc, had nothing to do with it.</end quote></div>
I dunno, is it a coincidence that our major cities have absolutely horrible schools, high poverty rates, and high crime rates, all the while being completely controlled by liberals?</end quote></div>
As compared to what?</end quote></div>
Oh I dunno, maybe a Republican getting elected and greatly improving a city, kinda like NY.
Anyways, big cities are like a great social experiment for liberals, where you can enact any liberal policy that you'd like without anyone opposing it, so if liberlism was the answer to everything, then wouldn't our cities be in a little better shape than they are now?
Edit - BTW, my point is that it is obviously more complicated than you make it out to be, there are many more factors that play a role in both situations than just liberal or conservative policies.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure conservatives think it's a complete coincidence that America emerged as a global superpower and economic powerhouse since the New Deal and through periods of huge government spending that have followed. I am sure you think all the big spending on infrastructure, science, education, etc, had nothing to do with it.</end quote></div>
I dunno, is it a coincidence that our major cities have absolutely horrible schools, high poverty rates, and high crime rates, all the while being completely controlled by liberals?</end quote></div>
As compared to what?</end quote></div>
Oh I dunno, maybe a Republican getting elected and greatly improving a city, kinda like NY.
Anyways, big cities are like a great social experiment for liberals, where you can enact any liberal policy that you'd like without anyone opposing it, so if liberlism was the answer to everything, then wouldn't our cities be in a little better shape than they are now?
Edit - BTW, my point is that it is obviously more complicated than you make it out to be, there are many more factors that play a role in both situations than just liberal or conservative policies.
theeedude
Lifer
Well, there is such a thing as too much government spending and control, no doubt. But there is also too little government spending and control, which conservatives don't seem to be able to grasp. The point is the US has struck a good balance since the New Deal, which has saved us the problems of the Soviet Union. So there is no reason to mess with a good thing.
Vic
Elite Member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
No way, no how. It's a recipe for turning America into a banana republic.
</end quote></div>
Yep. Because banana republics are always typified by low taxes, small government, and minimal central government control... oh, wait....</end quote></div>
Pretty much always.</end quote></div>
Pretty much never.
Banana republics are defined by the exact opposite, i.e. a powerful central dictatorship exerting all-but-full control on the backs of the majority. Think Castro or Chavez. And educate yourself.</end quote></div>
Those socialists governments emerged out of banana republics that were the small government nirvanas that conservatives dream of. Apparently their people didn't like it so much, or they wouldn't have gone the other way.</end quote></div>
No, they didn't. Your knowledge of politics and history is weak if you think so. For example, Fulgencio Batista was about as far from a "small government nirvanas that conservatives dream of" that you could get. He was a military general who came to power through armed coup (both times) against democratically-elected leaders and ruled with an iron but corrupt hand. Castro has proved to be little different except he calls himself a communists and so the "helpful idiots" love him.
edit: you know, given the resources of the internet at your fingertips, it amazes me that you think you can lie this blatantly.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
No way, no how. It's a recipe for turning America into a banana republic.
</end quote></div>
Yep. Because banana republics are always typified by low taxes, small government, and minimal central government control... oh, wait....</end quote></div>
Pretty much always.</end quote></div>
Pretty much never.
Banana republics are defined by the exact opposite, i.e. a powerful central dictatorship exerting all-but-full control on the backs of the majority. Think Castro or Chavez. And educate yourself.</end quote></div>
Those socialists governments emerged out of banana republics that were the small government nirvanas that conservatives dream of. Apparently their people didn't like it so much, or they wouldn't have gone the other way.</end quote></div>
No, they didn't. Your knowledge of politics and history is weak if you think so. For example, Fulgencio Batista was about as far from a "small government nirvanas that conservatives dream of" that you could get. He was a military general who came to power through armed coup (both times) against democratically-elected leaders and ruled with an iron but corrupt hand. Castro has proved to be little different except he calls himself a communists and so the "helpful idiots" love him.
edit: you know, given the resources of the internet at your fingertips, it amazes me that you think you can lie this blatantly.
JD50
Lifer
I guess it was a just a coincidence that the Republicans had control of congress during this time?
Either way, you are proving my point for me. Cities are affected by much more than just the party that controls them, just like our status on a worldwide scale is affected by much more than just the party that controls the country.
theeedude
Lifer
We are talking about economics here not politics. Economically, those guys were free for all small government, like Pinochet and his ilk that conservatives like so much. Politically they were dictators because this small government is politically unsustainable, which is exactly why these countries are now socialist.
theeedude
Lifer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure conservatives think it's a complete coincidence that America emerged as a global superpower and economic powerhouse since the New Deal and through periods of huge government spending that have followed. I am sure you think all the big spending on infrastructure, science, education, etc, had nothing to do with it.</end quote></div>
I dunno, is it a coincidence that our major cities have absolutely horrible schools, high poverty rates, and high crime rates, all the while being completely controlled by liberals?</end quote></div>
As compared to what?</end quote></div>
Oh I dunno, maybe a Republican getting elected and greatly improving a city, kinda like NY.
Anyways, big cities are like a great social experiment for liberals, where you can enact any liberal policy that you'd like without anyone opposing it, so if liberlism was the answer to everything, then wouldn't our cities be in a little better shape than they are now?
Edit - BTW, my point is that it is obviously more complicated than you make it out to be, there are many more factors that play a role in both situations than just liberal or conservative policies.
</end quote></div>
All big cities improved during the 90s, thanks to improving economy under Bill Clinton.</end quote></div>
I guess it was a just a coincidence that the Republicans had control of congress during this time?
Either way, you are proving my point for me. Cities are affected by much more than just the party that controls them, just like our status on a worldwide scale is affected by much more than just the party that controls the country.
</end quote></div>
Well, republicans had control of congress until last year, but crime rates in cities were going up. So no correlation there, sorry.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure conservatives think it's a complete coincidence that America emerged as a global superpower and economic powerhouse since the New Deal and through periods of huge government spending that have followed. I am sure you think all the big spending on infrastructure, science, education, etc, had nothing to do with it.</end quote></div>
I dunno, is it a coincidence that our major cities have absolutely horrible schools, high poverty rates, and high crime rates, all the while being completely controlled by liberals?</end quote></div>
As compared to what?</end quote></div>
Oh I dunno, maybe a Republican getting elected and greatly improving a city, kinda like NY.
Anyways, big cities are like a great social experiment for liberals, where you can enact any liberal policy that you'd like without anyone opposing it, so if liberlism was the answer to everything, then wouldn't our cities be in a little better shape than they are now?
Edit - BTW, my point is that it is obviously more complicated than you make it out to be, there are many more factors that play a role in both situations than just liberal or conservative policies.
</end quote></div>
All big cities improved during the 90s, thanks to improving economy under Bill Clinton.</end quote></div>
I guess it was a just a coincidence that the Republicans had control of congress during this time?
Either way, you are proving my point for me. Cities are affected by much more than just the party that controls them, just like our status on a worldwide scale is affected by much more than just the party that controls the country.
</end quote></div>
Well, republicans had control of congress until last year, but crime rates in cities were going up. So no correlation there, sorry.
Vic
Elite Member
This is all so far over senseamp's head it's not even funny. Hey, all dictatorships are small government nirvanas! Didn't you know? WTF.
Mursilis said it best in this thread: "People like Craig234 who praise gov't in theory while simultaneously bitching about the abuses of power of gov't in practice are either hopelessly naive or incapable of learning from experience."
Mursilis said it best in this thread: "People like Craig234 who praise gov't in theory while simultaneously bitching about the abuses of power of gov't in practice are either hopelessly naive or incapable of learning from experience."
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
The only thing that I wouldn't want to cut is defense spending, we saw what kind of mess that got us into when Clinton crippled our military and intelligence agencies.</end quote></div>
This asinine tripe again....
The majority of the defense cuts which occurred during Clinton's tenure were actually approved in the previous administration, by none other than Dick Cheney. Conveniently, conservatives then blame Clinton for "gutting" the military.
Don't tell me we would have prevented 9/11 if we had more nuclear submarines.
Blame Clinton all you want for misusing the military and failing to pursue Bin Laden, but defense cuts in the 90s initiated by a Republican president had little to do with failure to prevent terrorism.
On the issue of the "intelligence community" failing to foresee the 9/11 attacks, that is because of the historic focus on military intelligence to spy on Soviet military equipment and movements. Now we conveniently have the Chinese to bite our nails about. You see, billion dollar satellites are better for contractors than training humint agents to bribe some Middle Eastern sheik.
And now, I fear the same misinformation will occur regarding Iraq. Bush will keep US forces there with no change for the remainder of his presidency, letting blood the whole while, and when a Democrat enters office in 2009 and withdraws, the place will become even more hellish. Bush will be remembered by conservative commentators of the 2020s as a forward thinking genius, and some Democrat will take the fall for retreating from the "central front of the war of terror."
The only thing that I wouldn't want to cut is defense spending, we saw what kind of mess that got us into when Clinton crippled our military and intelligence agencies.</end quote></div>
This asinine tripe again....
The majority of the defense cuts which occurred during Clinton's tenure were actually approved in the previous administration, by none other than Dick Cheney. Conveniently, conservatives then blame Clinton for "gutting" the military.
Don't tell me we would have prevented 9/11 if we had more nuclear submarines.
Blame Clinton all you want for misusing the military and failing to pursue Bin Laden, but defense cuts in the 90s initiated by a Republican president had little to do with failure to prevent terrorism.
On the issue of the "intelligence community" failing to foresee the 9/11 attacks, that is because of the historic focus on military intelligence to spy on Soviet military equipment and movements. Now we conveniently have the Chinese to bite our nails about. You see, billion dollar satellites are better for contractors than training humint agents to bribe some Middle Eastern sheik.
And now, I fear the same misinformation will occur regarding Iraq. Bush will keep US forces there with no change for the remainder of his presidency, letting blood the whole while, and when a Democrat enters office in 2009 and withdraws, the place will become even more hellish. Bush will be remembered by conservative commentators of the 2020s as a forward thinking genius, and some Democrat will take the fall for retreating from the "central front of the war of terror."
Lot of responders who lack much of a sense of any morality regarding others' well being, and many of them who lack much sense of how the government can help the economy, not through 'inefficient spending' as if they are paying people to do nothing, but through the benefits of policy reflecting the public interest.
One of the losses of the Bush presidency is a lot of young Americans who are not exposed to the idea of the government being something that helps society.
As for the 'defense spending' for the constitution's 'common defense', it's always amazing to me how the cult members on the right fall for labels - call a bill that increases air pollution the "clear skies act", and they fall in line for it. Building a global empire is not defense. We can slash our budgets and have a very solid defense. What we have is a department of empire, not of defense.
While *some* of that is legitimate - we're not in an era of global isolation, and even when we were the British burned our capital to the ground in the 1810's - our nation has not learned how to be as benevolent a world power as we should, and we're constantly setting ourselves up where our military has to be used because we spent so much on it, whether in Viet Nam, Iraq, or elsewhere.
It's how we get ourselves into things like the assassinations for increasing our eceonomic benefits from another nation who happened to elect a leader who actually represents that nation instead of subjucating it to our wishes, and support for violent criminals such as the death squads of El Salvador and the Contras of Nicaragua.
And it's only going to get worse; the Neocons aren't the cause of an excessivelly aggressive foreign policy, they're merely the logical result of our constant military buildup who fill the vacuum of our unused military power, saying 'what the hell, use the military and take control of any possible adversary over the next 50 years'.
It's a little like being in an ongoing rock-throwing battle with a neighbor's family and having a pile of guns on the dinner table unused, while the neighbor has none; the guns will make someone eventually say, 'what the hell, pick up the damn guns and shoot those people'.
Among others, consider what Thomas Jefferson said on the matter:
One of the losses of the Bush presidency is a lot of young Americans who are not exposed to the idea of the government being something that helps society.
As for the 'defense spending' for the constitution's 'common defense', it's always amazing to me how the cult members on the right fall for labels - call a bill that increases air pollution the "clear skies act", and they fall in line for it. Building a global empire is not defense. We can slash our budgets and have a very solid defense. What we have is a department of empire, not of defense.
While *some* of that is legitimate - we're not in an era of global isolation, and even when we were the British burned our capital to the ground in the 1810's - our nation has not learned how to be as benevolent a world power as we should, and we're constantly setting ourselves up where our military has to be used because we spent so much on it, whether in Viet Nam, Iraq, or elsewhere.
It's how we get ourselves into things like the assassinations for increasing our eceonomic benefits from another nation who happened to elect a leader who actually represents that nation instead of subjucating it to our wishes, and support for violent criminals such as the death squads of El Salvador and the Contras of Nicaragua.
And it's only going to get worse; the Neocons aren't the cause of an excessivelly aggressive foreign policy, they're merely the logical result of our constant military buildup who fill the vacuum of our unused military power, saying 'what the hell, use the military and take control of any possible adversary over the next 50 years'.
It's a little like being in an ongoing rock-throwing battle with a neighbor's family and having a pile of guns on the dinner table unused, while the neighbor has none; the guns will make someone eventually say, 'what the hell, pick up the damn guns and shoot those people'.
Among others, consider what Thomas Jefferson said on the matter:
The national economy follows the president's party far more than Congress's party.
Do some research someday.
Here, I'll help you, click and read this link, if you can be bothered, JD50:
The facts, how they hurt the righty ideologues
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
