User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 117

  1. #91
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I can assure you, you're wrong. Bush didn't even ATTEMPT to call his style of governance "conservative" in that election. The only truly conservative thing about him is that he likes to cut taxes. However, as we all know, cutting taxes does nothing to limit the size of the government.
    Hmm, I'm not about to rewatch them all again. I'm probably thinking about the Gore election anyway.

    BTW, just how the hell do debates "frame" as a man as "big government" or "conservative?"
    By espousing ideology - like Bush being about tax cuts, implying Kerry would spend through increases in medical care, etc. That is, the various jabs at each other frame Bush as a conservative (even though it's a joke) and Kerry as big government.

    Obama, for one, is not a small government man. Neither is Hillary Clinton. Nor Ralph Nader. Exactly which center-left and left politicians and policies are you talking about?
    Absolutely none. I was talking about the actual outcome from having the party in power. And I was saying 'smaller', not 'small'.

  2. #92
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It's not an impossible ideal, either. The left simply wants to spend money on social care - in theory, they want to spend it to improve social costing for inefficient areas of the economy. This redistribution doesn't have be any larger or smaller than any other preference of spending.
    Again, bullshit. The left is just as tied to its special interests as is the right. Besides, your hypothesis that the right has grown the government more than has the left in the past century does not hold water. At least, not in the United States. The biggest increasers of the federal government's size as a percentage since 1908 have been Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Dubya. All had grand visions for the country, and all fought at least one war during their terms.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #93
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Hmm, I'm not about to rewatch them all again. I'm probably thinking about the Gore election anyway.
    The joke in that election was that Bush and Gore were basically the same candidate, one a little sunnier and to the right socially, the other boring and into the environment. Oh, how naive we all were.


    By espousing ideology - like Bush being about tax cuts, implying Kerry would spend through increases in medical care, etc. That is, the various jabs at each other frame Bush as a conservative (even though it's a joke) and Kerry as big government.
    Tax cuts are Bush's answer for everything. Tax cuts and taking away civil rights.


    Absolutely none. I was talking about the actual outcome from having the party in power. And I was saying 'smaller', not 'small'.
    So what you're saying is that an Obama administration, with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, would be better for smaller government than would be a McCain administration with a Republican or divided Congress? I really find that hard to believe. The best administration in terms of small government that we've had in generations was moderate Democratic president (Clinton) and rightish Republican Congress (1995-2001). Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #94
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.
    I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #95
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    Yeah, the government spending has radically increased, and so has the size of the government. I fail to see how this is can be considered a good thing.
    I seriously want to know where people are getting their statistics on American public spending. The last time I read the statistics, it said public spending in America has more or less been the same for the last 30 years, it is the most static it has been since the depression. Feel free to prove my statistics wrong.





    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.
    In that case 'proportional representation' should help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  6. #96
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.
    So you like things the way they are?

  7. #97
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    So what you're saying is that an Obama administration, with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, would be better for smaller government than would be a McCain administration with a Republican or divided Congress? I really find that hard to believe. The best administration in terms of small government that we've had in generations was moderate Democratic president (Clinton) and rightish Republican Congress (1995-2001). Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.
    Well, it just depends on if you believe rhetoric or past actions, or if they indicate what is probable here.

    I put my trust in the past trends more than what they say.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Again, bullshit. The left is just as tied to its special interests as is the right. Besides, your hypothesis that the right has grown the government more than has the left in the past century does not hold water. At least, not in the United States. The biggest increasers of the federal government's size as a percentage since 1908 have been Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Dubya. All had grand visions for the country, and all fought at least one war during their terms.
    *sigh* I know this may invoke some cognitive dissonance, but I'm not hypothesising. You keep throwing in strawmen - I'm not saying the left in the US isn't corrupt. I said exactly what I meant - that the right grows the government more than the left. Even above, all I'm saying that this doesn't have to be ideologically impossible. The left could have less net spending simply by limiting their choices to socially responsible ones (at the cost, of say, military/security). The whole point is that it is rhetoric that is speaking, not logic and not history.

    Here, you can read it from Mises/Rockwell if you need to, since I believe that would be the camp you wouldn't think is biased - Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute.

    I mean, I could bring up tons of interesting facts about how the country grew more under democrats, consistantly more so than under republicans. It's not exactly hard to bash republicans, because as far as I can tell, they fail every metric that has been measured.

    But fundamentally, both spend a lot of money, which was my original point. You can't compare the left and the fight as big/small government. What you can compare is the two together, and it isn't 'left' ideology that is the problem.

  8. #98
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    I seriously want to know where people are getting their statistics on American public spending. The last time I read the statistics, it said public spending in America has more or less been the same for the last 30 years, it is the most static it has been since the depression. Feel free to prove my statistics wrong.
    Image:Us federal spending(4).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    This is a wikipedia citation about which I am fairly confident.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #99
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    So you like things the way they are?
    Ideally, no. But I don't think either administration would improve the situation if they had congressional support. Imo, the less they do, the better.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #100
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Well, it just depends on if you believe rhetoric or past actions, or if they indicate what is probable here.

    I put my trust in the past trends more than what they say.
    Whose actions have shown them to be for smaller government? I can think of perhaps five members of Congress.


    *sigh* I know this may invoke some cognitive dissonance, but I'm not hypothesising. You keep throwing in strawmen - I'm not saying the left in the US isn't corrupt. I said exactly what I meant - that the right grows the government more than the left. Even above, all I'm saying that this doesn't have to be ideologically impossible. The left could have less net spending simply by limiting their choices to socially responsible ones (at the cost, of say, military/security). The whole point is that it is rhetoric that is speaking, not logic and not history.

    Here, you can read it from Mises/Rockwell if you need to, since I believe that would be the camp you wouldn't think is biased - Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute.

    I mean, I could bring up tons of interesting facts about how the country grew more under democrats, consistantly more so than under republicans. It's not exactly hard to bash republicans, because as far as I can tell, they fail every metric that has been measured.

    But fundamentally, both spend a lot of money, which was my original point. You can't compare the left and the fight as big/small government. What you can compare is the two together, and it isn't 'left' ideology that is the problem.
    You're really stretching here. I think your assertion that the right grows the government more than the left is wrong. You haven't cited one example of that thus far, excepting the widely-acknowledged fact that GWB is a big government maniac. Furthermore, you haven't addressed MY hypothesis that peace (or, at least, lack of war) is the surest way to slow or to stop government growth in the United States. Pre-GWB, the major American wars of the 20th Century tended to occur during the adminstrations of Democratic presidents, often working with Democratic congresses. That article is interesting, but it narrows spending increases to domestic spending. Foreign aid and war budgeting count the same amount as domestic spending, in my book.

    Also, I also defy you to name one strawman argument I have made thus far. I never even called the left "corrupt." I'm the strawman killer? Seriously?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Driving a school bus can't be too hard, right?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2016, 04:39 PM
  2. [MBTItm] I know I can't be the only person that's had this problem…could somebody help me?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-24-2013, 05:33 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO