I don't care if you're liberal or conservative.
Just don't be an idiot. That's all that should matter.
shareJust don't be an idiot. That's all that should matter.
shareI know a bunch of people that call me dumb for having a work ethic.
shareThat's not why people call you dumb, believe me.
shareLots of people in Europe and around the world routinely criticize Americans for working too hard, basically saying we're suckers who aren't taking enough time to enjoy life. But then our country isn't plagued by chronic economic stagnation or consumed in totalitarian conflagrations from time to time.
shareConservatives support idiotic policies. They are idiots by default.
shareAgreed. For further proof, look at the posts on this forum from these 'conservatives'.
shareLike what, pray tell?
shareTrickle-down economics for one. A tax bill that funnels money to the wealthy. Chew on that.
shareSupply side economics always outweighs demand side economics in order to spur the economy. That's why the 80's did so well. Everyone across the board was better off. What else you got?
shareThe 80's put America in debt you goof. We are a consumer nation. Put more money in the hands of the consumer and it drives the economy.
shareHow do you make consumers spend that money, pray tell?
shareConsumers by definition buy things. People need clothes. Food. Furniture. Houses. Cars. The list goes on. More money means more buying power.
shareYou explained two things. Jack and shit. If you give consumers more money, how do you make them spend it rather than save it, pray tell?
shareBecause people need things you goof.
shareYou're an idiot, but then again, what else is new?
If people ALREADY have an income, then they are spending that income. If you give them MORE income in hopes of having that spent back to spur the economy, what is going to make them spend it rather than save it? You can't tell me can you?
How do you make companies use the money they saved because of the tax bill in hiring more people and giving raises? How can you keep them from using the money for stock buy backs? Because that's what they've done. Wages remain stagnant.
shareWhat the hell are you babbling about? Why don't you answer my question? It's simple and straightforward. Why is it so difficult for you to answer it? Because YOU CAN'T, innit? What else is new? 🤪🤪🤪
shareGive it to the poor rather than the rich. Next question.
shareSo you must have really hated Obama since he single handedly doubled the national debt by 10 trillion.
And that Democrat party must really infuriate you. Outside of defense cuts, name the last time they wanted to cut spending on anything?
Show your work.
Obama's tax cut was bigger than what Trump is proposing
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-tax-cut-bigger-trump-proposing-175123554.html
Demoncraps totally forgot about Obumas 8 year presidency.
#fail
"Supply side economics always outweighs demand side economics in order to spur the economy. That's why the 80's did so well."
The Federal Government consumes over 20% more of our production today than it did in 1979.
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2019/
Your point?
sharehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now
When Nixon said it in 1971, Tax Freedom Day was April 26.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA
When Reagan said it in 1986, Tax Freedom Day was May 7.
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2014-data-tables/
I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Just don't be an idiot. That's all that should matter.
You keep lying about when Tax Freedom Day is, but that's an aside at this point because you never have made your point. Government spends too much? Is that it? Good. You agree with conservatives then.
Tell me what I lied about.
shareFor one thing you keep posting the wrong dates, calling them "Tax Freedom Day" instead of "Tax and Deficit Freedom Day", the second essentially just being a measure of total spending, which no one denies has basically continued to increase since FDR's New Deal, with some temporary fluctuations.
So was that your point? Government spends too much? Or did you have something else to say?
That is not a lie. We covered this in the other thread, where you did not use the word "lie."
"a measure of total spending, which no one denies has basically continued to increase since FDR's New Deal, with some temporary fluctuations."
What you meant to say was this:
"a measure of total spending, which no one denies has basically continued to increase since Jimmy Carter in 1979, with some temporary fluctuations."
It's a lie. You kept posting the misleading BS even after I corrected you. Your own source distinguishes between the real "Tax Freedom Day" and what you're posting. No excuses anymore.
"For one thing you keep posting the wrong dates, calling them "Tax Freedom Day" instead of "Tax and Deficit Freedom Day", the second essentially just being a measure of total spending, which no one denies has basically continued to increase since FDR's New Deal, with some temporary fluctuations."
What you meant to say was this:
"a measure of total spending, which no one denies has basically continued to increase since Jimmy Carter in 1979, with some temporary fluctuations."
LOL
You don't know what "lie" means, so I'm guessing you don't know what "chutzpah" means either.
You use the SAME report that you called a "lie" to make an argument for YOUR case.
In fact it increased..., and only a little over a week in the 39 years since [1980].
I'll give you 1980. And I'll give you "a little over a week" for 9 days.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE GOING THE OTHER WAY.
The only argument you've made is that "conservatives have had less power in Washington from 1981 to 2019 than they had before 1981." Which is absurd.
I didn't call the Tax Foundation's report a "lie", doofus. I rightly called your repeated mislabeling of their product (or giving the wrong dates for the label you posted), even after I corrected you, lying.
You also suck at math, and you wrongly disputed my point that spending has been generally increasing since FDR's New Deal. You claimed I meant to say it's been going up since 1979. In my post correcting you the point was that spending increased much faster from 1932-1980 than it has since.
So no, conservatives don't have "less power" after 1981 than before. Conservatives have helped slow runaway spending. They do need more power to solve the problem though.
"you wrongly disputed my point that spending has been generally increasing since FDR's New Deal. You claimed I meant to say it's been going up since 1979. In my post correcting you the point was that spending increased much faster from 1932-1980 than it has since."
I did not dispute, and I do not dispute, that spending exploded from FDR to 1980. We covered this in the other thread. Democrats OWNED Capitol Hill for almost 50 years, and Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford were not very willing (not willing at all?) to take an ax to the New Deal.
Then came 1981, deregulation, dramatic cuts to tax rates, etc.
And the Federal Government consumes more of our production than it did before 1981.
......
"[Conservatives] do need more power to solve the problem though."
"Who the hell cares about the budget?"
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-responds-critics-rising-federal-spending-debt-deficit-presidency-fundraiser-2020-1-1028833452
"Approval of Trump hit a new high of 91 percent among Republicans. That’s up from 85 percent last month."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-economy-ratings-as-half-say-senate-should-remove-trump
But at least the increase has slowed compared to pre 1981, as the numbers show. That's even with Democrats blocking the spending cuts Reagan wanted to enact, Obama's record shattering deficit blowups, and Democrats controlling the House the past year (and it or the Senate some other years over the past decade), leading to a spending surge.
It's dishonest to pretend that we've had 40 years of conservative governance. Bush Sr. was a moderate. George W. Bush was a conservative who governed as a moderate due in part to RINOs on Capitol Hill and a closely divided Congress (Democrat controlled after 2006). Even Trump is more of a centrist populist than a doctrinaire conservative. He's trying to do some big conservative things but entitlement reform isn't among them. Anyone who suggests reforming "third rail" programs like social security or Medicare gets blasted by scaremongering Democrats and ends up with commercials of them shoving old people off of cliffs like Paul Ryan did.
The bottom line is that spending won't decrease with more liberals in Washington. It will only decrease with more conservatives there.
"It will only decrease with more conservatives there."
The proof is in the pudding.
Here's a primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
It only takes one of the House, the Senate, and the President to block something...
Ho's can't say no.
Exactly. Conservatives have never had total control of the process in the modern era. But since Reagan took office government spending has grown slower than the previous few decades, as we've established.
If you really want less spending then we need fewer liberals and more conservatives in DC.
"Exactly" what?
It takes 3 parties to all say yes to spending. If one says no, there's no budget.
"Conservatives have never had total control of the process in the modern era."
umm... 2003 to 2006... 2017-2018...
The Democrats had it 1993-1994 and 2009-2010.
But but but the RINO's!
Anyway I only listened to parts of the State of the Union so I might have missed anything Trump may have said about reigning in spending. But I heard the part about $2.2 trillion on the military... The USS Gerald Ford cost $18 billion - are we getting 100 new aircraft carriers?
Well yeah, I said "conservative" not "Republican". They're not the same thing.
And Trump isn't a conservative. As I've always said, he's a centrist populist. But he is doing some big conservative things.
Trump is not conservative; the Bushes were not conservative; Reagan was not conservative; McConnell is not conservative.
See a pattern?
Here's the House vote on the spending bill in December:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h690
62 GOP Neas out of 197; or a little better than 1/3. That sort of compares to the "conservative" justices appointed to the Supreme Court in the abortion thread, 2/6 votes to overturn Roe.
Clearly, we're on the wrong path. And there will never be enough 'conservatives" to change course.
Or there will be. Regardless, that's the solution if you want less spending, especially in the long run since that requires entitlement reform.
shareThat's why the 80's did so well. Everyone across the board was better off.
Both sides have idiotic policies.
shareyep
shareThe "both sides" argument is tiresome. Either back it up with something or admit you're go by your feelings.
There's nothing more idiotic than the stupid wall idea. It's always been under 50% approval. Meanwhile medicare for all usually polls over 60%.
I knew if I did that, it would start an argument like the one above. But here are a few general examples:
Liberal:
Believes that a man who transitions to a female is now female and thinking otherwise makes you a bigot even if you want equal rights for them.
Diversity quotas.
The white privilege concept.
They're generally okay with illegal immigrants. The whole "no one is illegal" argument is stupid.
Not allowing the father of a child to have an opinion on abortion because they don't have a uterus. This also makes my first example a little more interesting.
Conservative:
Believes that everything should be Catholic and often uses God as part of their reasoning (ie "God given rights")
They want guns without any limitations.
The Trump Wall
They hate bans and boycotts but will start a boycott when something happens against them like if CNN criticizes Trump or when Dick's Sporting Goods decided not to sell guns anymore.
Thinks everything they don't agree with is fake news.
Now I've opened up a can of worms just for bringing these examples up.
I think most average people have a fair measure of both conservative and liberal opinions on things. But for the extremes these days it's all one way or the other and there's no compromise.
You said both sides have idiotic policies, but then argued stereotypes. A man can transition to a woman without liberals having to push any legislation. It's pretty much always been that way because its a free country. A person can disagree that he is a woman because there's no liberal policy being pushed to prevent it. It's just another loony right-wing talking point.
Meanwhile, conservatives actually push for prayer in school, though they struggle to get it. They fight tooth and nail against background checks and the gun show loophole. And of course the Wall that was Trump's #1 campaign promise.
This is why I said the "two sides" argument is tiresome. The left does not push for actual policy that is anywhere as crazy as some (not all) right-wing policies.
The left does not push for actual policy that is anywhere as crazy as some (not all) right-wing policies.
I'd argue that the Native Americans deserve more reparations than anyone and we haven't even closely given them enough.
We need a middle-road president--one that will listen to both parties. They'll never abolish the two-party system here. Our only other answer is a politically impartial president.
...THAT will never happen either.
I fear there is IS no solution for our country. We're at war with ourselves. We came here, murdered the native Americans, drove them off their lands and established ourselves here. The country has been split asunder ever since. We'll never be in 100% agreement on anything here.
The truth of the matter is that we need BOTH conservative and progressive policies. But that's not how our country functions. Obama swung us far left and Trump is swinging us far right. It's out of control. It's STUPID, to be honest.
That's the word: STUPID.
If ever you want to see all the flaws inherent in human beings, look no further than Politics and Religion. Both seem to bring about nothing but destruction.
The problem is that too many people think they're right and don't care for an opposing opinion.
shareAll I'm asking is for you or anyone to back up the claim that the left is pushing policies that are as crazy as the right's.
I understand the both sides argument feels safe, and if you're just going by your feelings then that's fine. But there's a difference between feeling a certain way because of actual policy, and feeling a certain way because of repeated talking points by the other side.
I mean, think of how often the right said that dems were going to ban guns even though there was no legislation being proposed to ban them, and then Trump bans bumpstocks behind closed doors.
All I'm asking is for you or anyone to back up the claim that the left is pushing policies that are as crazy as the right's.
It sounds like you agree with me that the left doesn't have stupid policies. It sounds more like your "both sides" argument applies to talking points and rhetoric.
Here are examples of stupid right-wing policies
- Walls to stop illegals from crossing even though illegals cross at ports of entry
- Opposing background checks so the NRA can maximize profits
- Banning abortion without addressing overpopulation
- Constant wars and regime change initiatives
All I'm asking is to give me one example of a stupid policy backed by democrats. All I see is stuff like "open borders" which is a right-wing talking point to get low-education voters to vote republican.
Bill C-16 in Canada makes it illegal for you to use the incorrect pronouns of someone who is transgender or someone who doesn't identify with any gender. This was implemented under liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. There is no law which makes it illegal to call a black person the N-word, a gay person a f*ggot, a mentally challenged person to be called a retard, but somehow not calling someone "ze" or “zir,” is illegal.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a policy in place to increase Canada’s annual intake of immigrants until it is 1% of Canada’s population every year. He allowed 300,000 immigrants his first year and has increased that number every year he's been in office. These numbers are more than twice the average amount of every country in the Western hemisphere. We also have issues with soaring housing prices which have doubled in the last 10 years but refuses to lower the number of immigrants.
A weird one I remember from a while ago: In California, liberals made it illegal for restaurants to offer toys with unhealthy meals that had 600 calories or more.
Very true. That's why both parties are at constant war with each other and why I refuse to join either of them.
shareGo get 'em ultra! Spittin' fire this morning!
shareThat's a good list for both parties, but I'd caution you and everyone commenting in here that, like Ultra said, many of these are stereotypes and don't define all members of those parties.
By my experience, only the zealots of either of those parties would adhere to those points (and others unlisted) but most average people from either party have plenty of "wiggle room" in several of those areas. What you're referring to are two severely opposite sides of the political spectrum and really only applies to the most hardened members of either party.
One thing I feel should be added to your Conservative list is this: Anyone who says anything negative about Trump is automatically labeled a "Liberal" even if they're not. For example, I've seen Trumpers who would likely accuse YOU of being liberal despite the fact you posted about BOTH parties in your post. That's how they define everyone--in two categories: pro-Trump or "liberal".
And, while I'm middle-road like you (despite all the liberal accusations from Trump's thick-headed followers) I will say this: I think the dems are the lesser of two evils at this point in time and Trump is the main reason I say that.
Regardless, I think our two-party system is killing us. Just look at the arguments it already bred in this thread--well-reasoned posters fighting with well-reasoned posters. I respect your views and I respect Ultra's view. No need for either of you to argue, if you ask me. You both raise good points.
This is what I mean--this party system divides and destroys. It's become weaponized by our government nowadays.
Of course not every one from these parties are like this. There are good and bad with both and I think things would be better if there were no political parties to begin with. Just have a bunch of people vying for President, have them state their beliefs and we start voting from there. I really don't understand the purpose of parties other than to get money to campaign.
One thing I feel should be added to your Conservative list is this: Anyone who says anything negative about Trump is automatically labeled a "Liberal" even if they're not.
We're in complete agreement. Nice to meet another middle-road poster around here. :)
shareI used to think I was left but then I started to realized that they would often call conservatives racist for things that weren't even racist or homophobic or transphobic. And on the other hand I often hear conservatives say liberalism is a mental disorder. People would then say "oh, you're a libertarian". And that's when I just decided to completely avoid the political spectrum entirely.
shareWhile I didn't pay much attention to politics growing up, I don't ever remember presidents being "far left" or "far right" to the extreme degree as we've seen lately. Again, I wasn't paying close attention but nowadays it really does seem to be this "extreme right or extreme left" pathway with few taking the middle road.
Both sides seem determined to fight rather than try to find compromise.
I will say this, though...I think that, given the two parties, the dems are the lesser of two "evils" right now and that's mainly because of Trump. There is this cultlike support of Trump that goes beyond anything I've ever seen in my lifetime. The dems don't seem to have anything THIS cultlike in their own circles no matter how crazy some of those "woke" politics can go. I also don't find them as hostile right now--at least not online. I've been receiving literal death threats from Trumpers on two other sites since 2016. That's the only reason why I'm sort of siding with the dem side these past three years: we share a common dislike of Trump and some of his more destructive policies.
I will also say this: ever since I came out as a middle-road political person, the dem side has treated me FAR more respectfully than the republican/Trump side has. I used to think that's why Trumpers called me a liberal (Because I typically join liberals in arguments against Trump) but then I saw the Trumpers calling republicans "libs" just for not liking Trump and that's when I realized the Trumpers have this baffling mentality where they few anyone who disagrees with them as a "liberal".
So, in a sense, I guess I am allied with the dems right now while not actually identifying as one of them. We have a common dislike of Trump and again--the dems are much nicer to me than the Trump supporters.
Regardless, it IS possible to have political differences AND be peaceful at the same time. I actually am friends with two or three Trump supporters. None of them are zealots but they are reasonable.
I've seen stupid radical leftists on this very board call for the NRA to be a outlawed as a "terrorist" organization (endorsing the San Francisco government edict branding it a "terrorist" group), support restrictions on free speech (e.g. NYC cracking down on the term "illegal alien" because it's supposedly "offensive"), and wishfully fantasize about getting to celebrate the deaths of their political opponents.
These are extreme positions and actions that strike at the heart of what's required to have a functioning, free democracy. I haven't seen conservatives do things like that.
Absolutely right!
shareYour title describes how I feel about every famous person EVER.
Go play dressup and keep your trap shut.
Or for CEO's: Go build your little f'n widget and keep your flap shut.
I don't mind a celebrity voicing their political opinion, it's just that I don't like the way some of them do it. If you win an award, shut up. No one wants to hear about your political opinion. We just want to hear you thank God and your family. Also, don't go on social media or on TV and say that we need to vote for so and so. You're using your fame to get the word out. Just say that you're voting for a certain candidate and that's it. Don't tell us who to vote for.
shareEither way, Nancy Pelosi tearing the speech last ngiht was the LOWEST ANYone(sic) can go.
shareTrump being supported by ANYone is the lowest. Guy is a compulsive liar and con man. Pubs don't give a damn about the American people as long as they have power, which is why they so enthusiastically this cretin who will be viewed by history as the worst president ever.
sharePelosi: "I don't hate anyone." I doubt that.
Pelosi: "It was the courteous thing to do." You mean it didn't dawn on her to tear the speech off camera?
Pelosi: "I'm a Catholic." I'm sure that's true, but she should amend it to a Catholic that is pro-abortion.
Pelosi: "We'll move forward with impeachment only with bipartisan support." Such a lie.
Schiff: "I never spoke to the Whistleblower." Even WaPo knows that's a lie.
Schiff: "We've made our case." As Jay Sekulow said, "Then why do you still need witnesses?" Maybe more wishful thinking than a lie? Either he's stupid or he lied, take your pick.
Schumer: "You can have whatever you want." Jay Sekulow said, Hunter. Joe Biden. Schiff. Whistleblower. I guess not those people aren't included in the "whatever you want" part.
Hypocrite much?🤪🤪🤪
Agreed with YOUR comment. :)
share