What I've noticed about liberals

[VinnieKulick]

The answer to everything is either A) spend money or B) Bush was evil.

Seriously, I can never get a honest answer as to WHY spending money is a good deal for the nation as a whole.

And whenever challenged on spending, the old "Bush spent this, Bush spent that, Bush got us into a war" etc.

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but when they can never bring anything to the table EXCEPT spending money, I find it hard to listen to them.

[thejuggernaut]

The answer to everything is either A) spend money or B) Bush was evil.

Seriously, I can never get a honest answer as to WHY spending money is a good deal for the nation as a whole.

And whenever challenged on spending, the old "Bush spent this, Bush spent that, Bush got us into a war" etc.

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but when they can never bring anything to the table EXCEPT spending money, I find it hard to listen to them.

Republican diehards screamed "but Clinton this, Clinton that".

Bush increased spending while cutting taxes.

Party cheerleaders are morons.

[Crazy Levi]

The answer to everything is either A) cut taxes for the rich or B) Clinton or Carter are to blame.

[pooldude]

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but when they can never bring anything to the table EXCEPT spending money, I find it hard to listen to them.

Nice way to start a constructive dialog, Vinnie.

I'm wondering exactly what credentials you bring to the table, outside of posting porn in the Sludge lounge?

[VinnieKulick]

Yeah, because if a person looks at naked women, he can't possibly be well read on politics, right?

[pooldude]

Yeah, because if a person looks at naked women, he can't possibly be well read on politics, right?

How can you hold a book & turn a page, let alone absorb philosophical, financial, & economic concepts...when you're constantly spanking Frank?

[lerxstcat]

Even Republicans espouse the adage, "Sometimes you have to spend money to make money".

A lot of projects, l;ike the Interstate highway system and national healthcare, would never beimplemented by anybody EXCEPT the Federal government. Is there ANBYBODY today who would say that commmerce does NOT benefit from the Interstate highway system? No one with an iota of intelligence, anyway.

So mliberals are usually the first to notice or acknowledge that major changes are needed for society as a whole to move ahead. The thing is, that Republicans, the supposed savvy businessmen, don't acknowledge that our infrastructure needs repairing and that national healthcare, once implemented, will result in a more productive and healthier workforce, eliminate pork in the medical and pharma industry, and be a net benefit for the people and the economy. The rich are not going to lose their piles of gold over it, it will just temporarily slow down the speed with which they amass them. Their alternative, ifthey don't wake up, will eventually be a French Revolution-like3 orgy of violence perpetrated upon the rich by the poor, which will certainly destabilize our nation and economy more than the current economic downswing.

[pooldude]

^^^
Ya say ya wanna re-vo-lu-tio-on we-ell ya know...we all wanna change the world...

The SDS & Weathermen went outta style about 40 years ago, there...Lerx.

Settle down, Bevis.

[lerxstcat]

Harry, are you saying "Let them eat cake"?

Just kidding, but if you think it can't happen here, well, I think it can happen anywhere if things get bad enough.

Who would have thought popular resistance would end the USSR, after Stalin calmly starved 20 million Ukrainians to death because he wanted guns, not butter? You'd have thought the Red Army would just mow 'em down and it'd be over.

But things had gotten so bad that even the army was not getting paid, or even fed properly. So the Red Army joined in saying "Fuck the USSR, we are RUSSIAN soldiers".

I think that if things could change so drastically in a totalitarian dictatorship, the populace here could go off similarly if it had had enough of the politicians' bullshit. I hope not, but I don't think you can say it's impossible, and I'm talking a mass popular uprising, not fringe groups like the Weathermen and the SDS.

[Ugmo]

The answer to everything is either A) spend money or B) Bush was evil.

Seriously, I can never get a honest answer as to WHY spending money is a good deal for the nation as a whole.

And whenever challenged on spending, the old "Bush spent this, Bush spent that, Bush got us into a war" etc.

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but when they can never bring anything to the table EXCEPT spending money, I find it hard to listen to them.

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

[pooldude]

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

Vinnie will get back to you later on that trick question, Ugmo.

He's got his hands full, right now.

[Ugmo]

I know before long EYU is going to show up to slap Vinnie around, but here are the facts: Vinnie wants to bitch about liberal spending, yet for some reason it is off limits to mention that the Republicans historically have been MUCH WORSE. The tradition of federal deficits in the hundreds of millions of dollars began with Reagan, was continued by Bush I, Clinton reduced the deficit and actually balanced the budget for a couple of years, and then Bush II once again brought back the enormous deficits. Those are the facts Vinnie. You are obviously not well read on politics or you would be aware of this.

Now, this thread I guess was prompted by Obama's enormous deficit, so I have no problem addressing that (and we have here plenty of times). Why in this case is spending money a good deal for the nation as a whole? Now that the recession is over, it is easy to forget that just one year ago we were facing cataclysmic economic collapse on a scale of the Great Depression. Spending money is a good thing when there is a very real possibility that the economy could contract by 20 percent annually over a period of several years if you don't spend money.

Now gtfo with your "liberals only know how to spend" bullshit.

[pooldude]

^^^

Vinnie doesn't wanna totally hate all libs & democrats...but now you're really pushin' his buttons.

[Ugmo]

I have to admit P-Dude, you are capable of stating your case in a much calmer and friendlier way than me.

[Thebottomline]

The answer to everything is either A) spend money or B) Bush was evil.

Seriously, I can never get a honest answer as to WHY spending money is a good deal for the nation as a whole.

And whenever challenged on spending, the old "Bush spent this, Bush spent that, Bush got us into a war" etc.

I don't want to totally hate democrats, but when they can never bring anything to the table EXCEPT spending money, I find it hard to listen to them.

I live in the state of Oregon and I pretty spend 50% of the time living in Washington or Oregon. Both states have gotten liberal over the past decade. Oregon hasn't had a Republican governor since Jan. 1986. Oregon is in a finanicial mess and it's getting worse and the liberals CANNOT blame the Republicans for that although Governor Ted Kulogonski has tried blaming Bush for the states problems it is more his problem because it's a local government issue. All Oregon wants to do is find ways to increase taxes because they say thats the answer to the problems. Right now there is a measures 66 and 67 that the voters are getting ready to vote on. If those measures pass and the tax is implemented the surviving businesses will be forced to pay more but it will in fact shut ALOT of smaller mom and pop businesses down. How does Oregon benefit from that when those mom and pop employ a few people (statewide those few people per business add up to alot of people) and they all no longer can work because the business got shutdown because they could no longer afford to operate? It adds more to the unemployment rate (oregon has the 2nd highest unemployement rate in the U.S. but it looks like its working hard to get to number 1) and now there are less people paying taxes. Doesn't seem like a win win situation to me but liberals dont see it.

Thats alright because in Oregon right now there are less schools now than there was 30 years ago, fact. There are less law enforement officers now than there was 30 years ago, another fact. But yet there is more people living here than there was 30 years ago and more people paying more in taxes where in the FUCK IS ALL THE MONEY GOING?

I am ready for the democrats get dumped in the next elections.

I work in a very blue collar enviroment (Teamsters Union) and majority of the people I work with are democrat and they are ready to see the dems go away.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Yeah, because if a person looks at naked women, he can't possibly be well read on politics, right?

This is the funniest thing I've read on the War Board in a long time.

[Thebottomline]

Yeah, because if a person looks at naked women, he can't possibly be well read on politics, right?

This is the funniest thing I've read on the War Board in a long time.

I think Larry Flynt would stronlgy agree with Vinnie Kulick.

[pooldude]

oregon has the 2nd highest unemployement rate in the U.S.

According to the latest US Dept of Labor statistics, you are incorrect.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Oregon is #44 out of 51, including the District of Columbia.

That's not to say the numbers are good, but your claims are exaggerated.

I think it's fair to say that almost every state is suffering from the current nation-wide recession, which began in 2007 during Mr Bush's administration.

We're all currently suffering from reduced income & revenues: individuals, businesses, and government.

But there are many financial indicators that point towards a slowly improving economy, with recovery on the horizon.

We shall see.

[Thebottomline]

oregon has the 2nd highest unemployement rate in the U.S.

According to the latest US Dept of Labor statistics, you are incorrect.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Oregon is #44 out of 51, including the District of Columbia.

That's not to say the numbers are good, but your claims are exaggerated.

I think it's fair to say that almost every state is suffering from the current nation-wide recession, which began in 2007 during Mr Bush's administration.

We're all suffering from reduced income & revenues: individuals, businesses, and government.

But there are many financial indicators that point towards a slowly improving economy, with recovery on the horizon.

We shall see.

I got my info from the Oregon employment office last week and I'm going with it. But to additionally tax businesses who are struggling to survive is not the answer but more so add to the states problem.


Edited to add:
Actually reading that chart from the link you posted it says that Oregon is the eight highest unemployment rate. Look at the numbers to the right side of the screen there Harry so I am not at all that exaggerated. North Dakota which is listed at #1 has the lowest unemployment rate at 4.1% and Michigan has the highest at 14.7%. The top is the lowest and the bottom has the highest. Thanks for the link though I will be viewing it again in a few days when they update for December.

[pooldude]

Thanks for the link though I will be viewing it again in a few days when they update for December.

Here in my new hometown, the unemployment rate has actually gone over 15%.

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/busines ... -1-percent

But I think we will all see gradual improvement in the coming months, as the various stimulus plans take effect.

[Thebottomline]

Thanks for the link though I will be viewing it again in a few days when they update for December.

Here in my new hometown, the unemployment rate has actually gone over 15%.

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/busines ... -1-percent

But I think we will all see gradual improvement in the coming months, as the various stimulus plans take effect.

I really dont see any hope for Oregon in the near future. Until something is done about the incompetent politicians that keep getting elected, Oregon will remain having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. The stimulus is just a band aid on a big unstiched laceration.

[lerxstcat]

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

Vinnie will get back to you later on that trick question, Ugmo.

He's got his hands full, right now.

Pretty sure that was Bill Clinton. He was good at getting the wimmins to work for free though... that's 51% of the populace, so there ya go!

[pooldude]

Pretty sure that was Bill Clinton. He was good at getting the wimmins to work for free though... that's 51% of the populace, so there ya go!

Yes...but I heard rumors that his "wimmins" intern program went splaattt!

[lerxstcat]

Pretty sure that was Bill Clinton. He was good at getting the wimmins to work for free though... that's 51% of the populace, so there ya go!

Yes...but I heard rumors that his "wimmins" intern program went splaattt!

Yeah, too bad for him that he was too cheap to spring for the dry cleaning, huh? But ya gotta love the guy anyway! He may not have tagged Marilyn Monroe, but he DID tag Miss America... while he was still just Governor of Arkansas, too!

If you can fuck Miss America when you're only making $35K a year (the Gov's salary at the time) you've got some game!

[VinnieKulick]

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

Perhaps some good reading would be found if you googled CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.

A President doesn't do ANYTHING but sign laws, and budgets.
It's CONGRESS who makes things happen.

Which is why this current one is so bad, because they just want to keep throwing money at 'problems' that don't really exist, or are way over exaggerated.

[pooldude]

Which is why this current one is so bad, because they just want to keep throwing money at 'problems' that don't really exist, or are way over exaggerated.

Yea that's right Vinnie...there was no banking crisis, & virtually all lending never locked up, & no businesses had trouble with their credit lines, & it's easy for consumers to get loans, & we were never on the verge of the next Depression.

Right?

You're exhibiting the mentality of a guy who, despite the meltdown, would have voted for Hoover over Roosevelt almost 70 years ago.

[Ugmo]

Hey Vinnie, from what party was the last president to balance a budget?

Perhaps some good reading would be found if you googled CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.

A President doesn't do ANYTHING but sign laws, and budgets.
It's CONGRESS who makes things happen.

Which is why this current one is so bad, because they just want to keep throwing money at 'problems' that don't really exist, or are way over exaggerated.

No, you're not going to get off that easy. It is the president who proposes the budget and then submits it to Congress for approval. Clinton's 1993 budget - the one which led to the surplus - was opposed by every single Republican. Al Gore had to go to Capital Hill to vote as a tiebreaker, because the Republicans were trying to obstruct it as they obstruct everything else proposed by a Democratic president.

So nice try propagating that myth.

[VinnieKulick]

I'm not getting off that easy? You're talking about 1993. I was talking about 1994 when the GOP ran on the Contract with America. Part of that included an proposed amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget.

And the reason the budget was able to be balanced in the first place, was the 85% increase in tax revenue during Clinton's years in office(thanks to tax increases he implemented in 1993). Clinton still increased spending by 30% over the course of his Presidency.

Not to mention, Clinton was so opposed to the spending cuts, the Federal Government was shut down in 1995. But, lets not let those FACTS get in the way of a good story.

On another subject, nobody doubts that the Interstate system is essential for commerce in the USA, but really? Clinging to a 60 year old idea to show what is GOOD about spending is a bit of a reach.

[Ugmo]

Oh, I know exactly what you were talking about, because after blocking every effort by Clinton to push through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the Republicans found themselves on the wrong side of history and tried to take credit for what they actually made every effort to prevent. They've been propogating the myth that they actually balanced the budget for about a decade now.

How about we focus on the true facts, eh Vinnie, which are that every Republican president since Reagan has ballooned the deficit and spent like a drunken sailor. Weird how that doesn't quite fit your hypothesis.

[VinnieKulick]

Reagan had a massive military buildup that accounted for his spending.
Bush (the W kind) spent out of control, and is a reason I no longer consider myself a Republican.

And, if you want to point fingers at people spending, Obama spent more than every single president in history combined.