By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So who do you want to run against Obama in 2010?

Kasz216 on 12 December 2008

 

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.



Around the Network
slimeattack on 12 December 2008

1. Ron Paul
2. Sarah Palin



Final-Fan on 12 December 2008
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
The reason republicans aren't fiscally conservative anymore is because democrats aren't fiscally conservative and it's a dozen times easier to get spending bills passed then it is to get spending cuts passed.

If you aren't getting a big piece of the pie your constitutiants are wondering why the blue disctricts are getting so much more of the national taxpayer money.

Republicans and Democrats fight over the budget... and aren't willing to compromise.  If the democrats are going to get so much money for their plans, the republicans want at least as much money for their plans or it looks bad on them.  Etc.

That's the problem.  For one party to be fiscally conservative they both do in the modern times.
I don't think the evidence supports this argument.

The last time Democrats controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 1993-1994.  They raised taxes and cut spending, enabling the balanced budgets and budget surpluses of the 1990s.  (Republicans hammered on the "raised taxes" part hard enough to win historic amounts of Congressional seats.)

The last time the Republicans controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 2001 and 2003-2007.  Um, do I have to say it?

On a side note, I would guess that the blue districts get more money anyway because big cities trend Democratic.
I'm pretty sure the Balanced budget was around in the early Clinton Years.  When the republicans were in control.

I'm pretty sure in fact it was balanced then because I remember the White House almost getting shut down during the whole fiasco.

And I said a bigger percentage of the money.  Not bigger amount.

Nope, you're wrong.  I've had this exact same discussion before and I think it was with you. 

(Two minutes later)

OK, well, not the same discussion, but the post I made then is pretty much exactly on topic for this discussion as well. 

"Actually, the Democratic congress was not replaced until 1994.  This is largely because of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (AKA Deficit Reduction Act) which is credited with balancing the budget.  It raised taxes and cut spending.  Every single Republican in Congress (House and Senate) voted against the bill.  Republicans were able, IIRC, to hammer Democrats for raising taxes and swept into control of both House and Senate in 1994."

For clarity, I meant the 1994 elections, of course.  Democrats controlled the House and Senate up until January 1995. 

And I don't understand how "a bigger percentage" would be different from "a bigger amount compared to other places".  A bigger per capita amount would make a difference.  Is this what you mean?  If not, what do you mean?
Interesting...  Though I'm still not seeing how that disagrees with my assesment... since the spending cut was most likely largely republican based projects.

It becomes a matter of two sides fighting over the same budget line... I mean the republicans really went wrong sometime after TR.  Who was like the first major advocate of Universal Healthcare... yet also a strident hater of wasteful spending, needless regulations etc.

and yeah i do mean per capita.  In which it only makes sense.

The people who are for wasteful spending are just going to get more then their fair share of the budget... because they're going to ask for money they don't need... they're just going to get other tax payers money... not because their district needs it...but because it wants it.

Maybe, although I think the burden of proof is on you there.  A few minutes' worth of Internet research on my part revealed little other than "a lot of it was defense spending cuts".  Although Republicans are traditionally hawkish there, I understand Cheney pushed for MORE cuts than the Democrats would go for, so whatever. 

But I think that in any case this really calls into question the main assertion that I was responding to, namely that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible because Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.  If we look at the actions of the most recent totally Democratic Congress and administration, and the most recent totally Republican Congress and administration, it paints a dramatic portrait that is the opposite of that claim. 

Both parties are guilty of pork -- but didn't earmarks increase wildly under the Republican Congresses?



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 12 December 2008
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
The reason republicans aren't fiscally conservative anymore is because democrats aren't fiscally conservative and it's a dozen times easier to get spending bills passed then it is to get spending cuts passed.

If you aren't getting a big piece of the pie your constitutiants are wondering why the blue disctricts are getting so much more of the national taxpayer money.

Republicans and Democrats fight over the budget... and aren't willing to compromise.  If the democrats are going to get so much money for their plans, the republicans want at least as much money for their plans or it looks bad on them.  Etc.

That's the problem.  For one party to be fiscally conservative they both do in the modern times.
I don't think the evidence supports this argument.

The last time Democrats controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 1993-1994.  They raised taxes and cut spending, enabling the balanced budgets and budget surpluses of the 1990s.  (Republicans hammered on the "raised taxes" part hard enough to win historic amounts of Congressional seats.)

The last time the Republicans controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 2001 and 2003-2007.  Um, do I have to say it?

On a side note, I would guess that the blue districts get more money anyway because big cities trend Democratic.
I'm pretty sure the Balanced budget was around in the early Clinton Years.  When the republicans were in control.

I'm pretty sure in fact it was balanced then because I remember the White House almost getting shut down during the whole fiasco.

And I said a bigger percentage of the money.  Not bigger amount.

Nope, you're wrong.  I've had this exact same discussion before and I think it was with you. 

(Two minutes later)

OK, well, not the same discussion, but the post I made then is pretty much exactly on topic for this discussion as well. 

"Actually, the Democratic congress was not replaced until 1994.  This is largely because of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (AKA Deficit Reduction Act) which is credited with balancing the budget.  It raised taxes and cut spending.  Every single Republican in Congress (House and Senate) voted against the bill.  Republicans were able, IIRC, to hammer Democrats for raising taxes and swept into control of both House and Senate in 1994."

For clarity, I meant the 1994 elections, of course.  Democrats controlled the House and Senate up until January 1995. 

And I don't understand how "a bigger percentage" would be different from "a bigger amount compared to other places".  A bigger per capita amount would make a difference.  Is this what you mean?  If not, what do you mean?
Interesting...  Though I'm still not seeing how that disagrees with my assesment... since the spending cut was most likely largely republican based projects.

It becomes a matter of two sides fighting over the same budget line... I mean the republicans really went wrong sometime after TR.  Who was like the first major advocate of Universal Healthcare... yet also a strident hater of wasteful spending, needless regulations etc.

and yeah i do mean per capita.  In which it only makes sense.

The people who are for wasteful spending are just going to get more then their fair share of the budget... because they're going to ask for money they don't need... they're just going to get other tax payers money... not because their district needs it...but because it wants it.

Maybe, although I think the burden of proof is on you there.  A few minutes' worth of Internet research on my part revealed little other than "a lot of it was defense spending cuts".  Although Republicans are traditionally hawkish there, I understand Cheney pushed for MORE cuts than the Democrats would go for, so whatever. 

But I think that in any case this really calls into question the main assertion that I was responding to, namely that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible because Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.  If we look at the actions of the most recent totally Democratic Congress and administration, and the most recent totally Republican Congress and administration, it paints a dramatic portrait that is the opposite of that claim. 

Both parties are guilty of pork -- but didn't earmarks increase wildly under the Republican Congresses?

The current Republican Congress is full of wastefull Neocons however.

No the old traditional republicans who were the same as the neocons except in respects to spending.

I have no problem blaming Neocons for things since they believe in like the exact opposite of everything i do.

I mean currently rural America is actually getting a higher percentage of earmarks i believe.  Largely due to a lot idiotic moves like "Lets spend as much for national security in Montana as we do NY."

Edit: Article on Earmarks

http://www.dailyyonder.com/so-who-getting-all-those-congressional-earmarks



Final-Fan on 12 December 2008
Kasz216 said:

The current Republican Congress is full of wastefull Neocons however.

No the old traditional republicans who were the same as the neocons except in respects to spending.

I have no problem blaming Neocons for things since they believe in like the exact opposite of everything i do.

Well if we could be running today's Democrats against Eisenhower's Republicans, I suspect I would probably vote Republican.  Unfortunately, we're not. 

In other words, let the blame game begin! 

I blame Republicans for Ninjabread Man.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
akuma587 on 12 December 2008

About where I pegged myself:



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 12 December 2008
Comrade Tovya said:
Well I don't really like political terminology anyway. I think that because I keep out of a gay individual's personal business (because it doesn't concern me in any way) that makes me even more conservative... I believe in conserving the individuals rights to do what they want to themselves without recourse as long as their action doesn't negatively affect another human being.

Kind of like with smoking, I don't care if people smoke as long as, in the event they get cancer, they don't expect a taxpayer handout for medical treatment. If they do, then I am totally against it. I don't think it's my responsibility to bail people out of their self-created problems. But if they say, "hey, I got cancer, my bad... I'll deal with it myself because I created the problem by smoking", they can smoke 10 packs a day for all I care.

Therefore, most of my social political stances tend to fall that direction. I don't care what a people do to themselves, as long as what they are doing doesn't directly affect someone else.

I'm actually more against smoking than gay marriage.  Cigarette smoke ends up costing the healthcare system a lot of money, which indirectly ends up costing the entire country more money since the costs are spread out.

But I'm all for the legalization of a wide variety of drugs.  Its just that cigarettes really are pretty dangerous healthwise.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 12 December 2008
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:

The current Republican Congress is full of wastefull Neocons however.

No the old traditional republicans who were the same as the neocons except in respects to spending.

I have no problem blaming Neocons for things since they believe in like the exact opposite of everything i do.

Well if we could be running today's Democrats against Eisenhower's Republicans, I suspect I would probably vote Republican.  Unfortunately, we're not. 

In other words, let the blame game begin! 

I blame Republicans for Ninjabread Man.

No real blame game about it.  Just see no way to get back to the "Good old days." politically.

People seem hellbent on wasteful spending regardless.

Even a depression won't stop them since constant spending is what's supposed to get you out of a depression.

We seem somewhat caught in a loop of crazy spending.

I mean, i'd argue that the Neocons took power... probably with Reagan starting mostly. 

I mean Reagan promised a lot of cuts... one of his and George Bush's big campaign planks was "I will eliminate the useless department of education."

It's still here though... why?  It's a great place to put political lackies.

 



Kasz216 on 12 December 2008

Also Ninja Breadman was created by a British Company. So they're more likely to be left leaning then right leaning.

Though admittidly government intervention could have prevented the game from coming out.



rocketpig on 12 December 2008
Final-Fan said:

Similarly, there's only one Personal question that rocketpig answered Maybe to -- but his is harder to guess.  halogamer1989's was a pretty good bet because Americans usually have a deep ingrained defense of freedom of speech and he Disagreed with all the rest. 

I'll guess ... hmm ... drugs, with National ID as runner-up.

Ding ding ding, it was drugs. I'm all for relaxing many drug laws and making some outright legal... but I don't see the world being a better place if heroin can be purchased over the counter. That's just common sense.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/