The Cowardly Liberals on USMB

[Pogo]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

The ignorant OP'er ask me the same stupid question, and I have pointed out countless of time I am not supporting Hillary Clinton and I am voting third party if Trump or Cruz are the GOP candidate, and yet to the OP'er claim I am a Liberal supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I swear some of Trump supporters are living proof that they can be dumber than a Albino Chimp with down syndrome!

Judging by the avatar the poster may not have been born yet, so that would explain the limited intellect.
It's rampant on this board, this binary thinking that sees only two possibilities and if you're not in "my" camp, then you must be in the only other one I can see. Then they want to blame everybody else for the fact that they're not bothering to look any deeper than their own tiny little vision.

Ok, lovely, we get your point --- i.e., even if Hillary wants to spend two million on programs does not mean you are in favor of it just because you are far more liberal than conservative on most social, moral or political matters. Got it. Big deal.

You would still vote for her over any republican, or wouldn't you?
In other words, a huge deficit is not a major issue for you or for those who will vote for Hillary. And that was his point about the careless and misguided Hillary fans.

Nnnnno.
Here's the point, Binary Bob: I've never even brought up Hillary. Because I don't delude myself that there are "only two" alternatives. Y'all mental midgets can only handle two concepts, and if one doesn't fit, then it must be the other --- you completely miss your own failing that there are ALWAYS more than two alternatives.

That's how some of us who have never even posted on O'bama exept in the negative get painted as "Obamabots", "Libtards", "America Destroyers" or whatever the schoolyard term of the day is --- if we've declined to join in the hair-on-fire bullshit hysteria, then surely we must fit into Box B, the antiBox, because your tiny little mind doesn't have room to see all the other boxes.

And you know whose fault that is?

Hint: now appearing in your mirror.

Again, you purposefully avoid the point made. I explained what the real gist of the point the top poster was making in almost no uncertain terms.

It had nothing to do with whether you agreed with Hillary or not on certain issues. It had nothing to do with one has to be of one position or the other position, no other options.

And yet, you insist on making that the argument. Pshaw. You are so intent on looking like a winner even if it has nothing to do with the issue.

Of course you could re-read what I said above, but what good might that do either one of us?

Is the sentence "You would still vote for her over any republican [sic], or wouldn't you?" some kind of praeto-Finnish phrase meaning "what kind of pretzel do you like" then? Or did I imagine that?

Kudos for use of the word pshaw though, really. I haven't seen that in print since fifth grade, and as a lexicographial archconservative, I appreciate that and laud it in the spirit of coöperation. Best archaic term I've seen to-day.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i wonder how much of the two trillion she proposes will wind up in the pockets of reid,pelosi and the rest?

 

[Pogo]

Pogo is black, therefore that's racist.

I had nothing at all to do with Pogo being born Black and a racist.

Neither did Pogo, but that is nature of what is "racism" today. It is not what you are, rather, it is how they choose to define you.

That is what the Trump revolt is about.

Actually, I could care less about racism or Pogo.

It's kind of amusing what happens when the intellectually shortchanged inevitably come up short of mental change. I've had my gender bent, my religion chosen for me, my name entered into a political party, my nationality emigrated, and now my race misplaced -- all by asshats who can't deal with the point in front of them.*

Binary thinkers --- if what they see is not one of the "either/or" to which they enslave themselves, then it's necessary to change the nature of the other party; there's no way the flaw could be the tiny little box into which they've sealed themselves while warning the world, "I'M NOT COMING OUT".

SMH


*EDIT - I see Henry's here so I should add "my employment history invented" to that list...

If some think you're black, it is the content of your posts. Get a job and stop mooching off the rest of us. You'll feel better about yourself, I promise.

I promise you there is nothing in the Czech Republic I "mooch" from. I do have a 90-year-old violin made in what it calls "Czecho-Slovakia", but I paid for it in full.

 

[Londoner]

Short Answer

Clinton ain't gonna pay for shit any more than Reagan or Bush 43 did, both of whom left the nation deeply in debt.

Long Answer

The logic for the spending strategies of Republicans and Democrats is old news.

1. Clinton is going to offset some of the cost by a slight increase in taxes on the plutocracy that owns our political system.

2. Just as Reagan said tax cuts pay for themselves (through increased economic growth > increased revenue), Liberals (and many pre-Tea Party Republicans) believe that investment in infrastructure pays for itself, e.g., the satellite system that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budget has turned into massive private sector profits - and it lead to immense technological and efficiency gains across sectors.

Turn off FOX News and research the history of Boeing and aerospace technology, specifically the amount of government spending dumped into these things. Having a first world industrial infrastructure, an expensive Patent system, a military that protects overseas supply chains (like Exxon's oil fields in the mideast), and an expensive legal system that protects private property and enforces contracts is crucial to capital investment. (And all these things require taxation > spending. The Republican base doesn't understand the different kinds of spending because their pundit class has given them very simplistic explanations for almost everything. For example, look at how simple Bush made Iraq sound. He never outlined the tribal tensions in the region, or the near impossible task of reconstructing Iraq)

The point here is that the OP has never - in any of his posts - displayed an understanding of the basic arguments that each side offers for its fiscal strategies.

It would be nice if the OP opened up a more complex discussion (rather than his typical spam and mindless drivel).

Let's take a more complex look at "Government Spending". Consider the economic growth under Reagan, which was fairly robust. Here's is the problem. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. He tripled Carter's debt. Cconsumer debt also tripled, as the middle class transitioned from wage-based consumption to credit (debt)-based consumption.

Reagan absolutely abandoned any pretense of paying for his massive increase in military spending - but the Left sees Reagan's spending differently than the Right. For the Left, Reagan was not simply spending, but he was engaged in a form of military Keynesianism, which stimulated the economy .

Reagan created 4x as many government jobs as Carter, mostly in defense. But every government job Reagan added to San Diego and Orange counties represented another consumer on "Main Street", which was a boon to local ecnomies. You get this right? This isn't rocket science. When more people can afford to buy shit, business has an incentive to add more jobs and expand production. And when more jobs are added, you have even more consumers on Main Street (it's a "virtuous cycle"). This is the same kind of government-spending that helped end the Great Depression and created the Golden Era of capitalism in the 50s & 60s.

Seriously, the OP doesn't know any of this shit. FDR didn't end the Depression with government programs. The Depression was ended because of the jobs and industrial output that came from the war effort. If we built the bombs/airplanes and the millions of other things that needed to be manufactured and simply dumped these things in the ocean - the effect would have been the same: more people working = more people flocking to "main street" and buying things from business = economic growth.

FDR and Reagan used government spending to create jobs and technology, both of which lead to spectacular economic growth.

When the OP labels everything as "spending" (without unpacking the different kinds of spending), he engages in simplifications that turn an otherwise complex issue into a bumper sticker.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and so many of the male liberals come off as guy. like harry reid and that dude that looks like Mr.Roper/

 

[the_human_being]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

Except for the fact that she hasn't mentioned cutting anything at all, only increase taxes which is the usual Democrat solution.

 

[the_human_being]

Short Answer

Clinton ain't gonna pay for shit any more than Reagan or Bush 43 did, both of whom left the nation deeply in debt.

Long Answer

The logic for the spending strategies of Republicans and Democrats is old news.

1. Clinton is going to offset some of the cost by a slight increase in taxes on the plutocracy that owns our political system.

2. Just as Reagan said tax cuts pay for themselves (through increased economic growth > increased revenue), Liberals (and many pre-Tea Party Republicans) believe that investment in infrastructure pays for itself, e.g., the satellite system that came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budget has turned into massive private sector profits - and it lead to immense technological and efficiency gains across sectors.

Turn off FOX News and research the history of Boeing and aerospace technology, specifically the amount of government spending dumped into these things. Having a first world industrial infrastructure, an expensive Patent system, a military that protects overseas supply chains (like Exxon's oil fields in the mideast), and an expensive legal system that protects private property and enforces contracts is crucial to capital investment. (And all these things require taxation > spending. The Republican base can't separate the different kinds of spending because their brains have been so completely co-opted by a pundit class that never parses these complex issues)

The point here is that the OP has never - in any of his posts - displayed an understanding of the basic arguments that each side offers for its fiscal strategies.

It would be nice if the OP opened up a more complex discussion (rather than his typical spam and mindless drivel).

Let's take a more complex look at "Government Spending". Consider the economic growth under Reagan, which was fairly robust. Here's is the problem. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor. He tripled Carter's debt. Cconsumer debt also tripled, as the middle class transitioned from wage-based consumption to credit (debt)-based consumption.

Reagan absolutely abandoned any pretense of paying for his massive increase in military spending - but the Left sees Reagan's spending differently than the Right. For the Left, Reagan was not simply spending, but he was engaged in a form of military Keynesianism, which stimulated the economy .

Reagan created 4x as many government jobs as Carter, mostly in defense. But every government job Reagan added to San Diego and Orange counties represented another consumer on "Main Street". The spending didn't just go into a black hole; it jump started the economy. You get this right? This isn't rocket science. When more people can afford to buy shit, business has an incentive to add more jobs and expand production. And when more jobs are added, you have even more consumers on Main Street (it's a "virtuous cycle"). This is the same kind of government-spending that helped end the Great Depression and created the Golden Era of capitalism in the 50s & 60s.

Seriously, the OP doesn't know any of this shit. FDR didn't end the Depression with government programs. The Depression was ended because of the jobs and industrial output that came from the war effort. If we built the bombs/airplanes and the millions of other things that needed to be manufactured and simply dumped these things in the ocean - the effect would have been the same: more people working = more people who can afford to buy the things that business is selling.

FDR and Reagan used government spending to create jobs and technology, both of which lead to spectacular economic growth.

When the OP labels everything as "spending", he engages in simplifications that turn an otherwise complex issue into a bumper sticker.

The OP is speaking to an audience that hasn't the foggiest inkling as to just what the stated policies of their own leading candidate are. I have been forced by their own lack of knowledge to provide them with links that detail these policies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

There are no tax loopholes for companies moving overseas. They get the same write-offs as any other company that moves within the states, and that's about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

Except for the fact that she hasn't mentioned cutting anything at all, only increase taxes which is the usual Democrat solution.

How do the Republicans plan paying for massive increases in defense spending?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For you Liberals' digestion since it is apparent you have absolutely zero idea concerning your own leading candidate's proposals perhaps this will serve to make you a little bit more of an informed voter.

Hillary’s tax proposals: Disastrous for the economy

Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan--A Detailed Analysis

Clinton: My Agenda Will Cost Us $1 Trillion In New Spending

Hillary Clinton Policy Proposals Total $1 Trillion in New Government Spending

GOP Attacks Hillary Clinton’s Spending Plans

How many jobs would Hillary Clinton’s minimum wage proposal actually cost?

NEW INFOGRAPHIC: Clinton Proposes $1 Trillion In New Spending - America Rising

A hundred billion a year over ten years? How much of that is for spending that the GOP will support?

 

[the_human_being]

What Hillary Clinton's Spending Plans Mean for You

 

[the_human_being]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

Except for the fact that she hasn't mentioned cutting anything at all, only increase taxes which is the usual Democrat solution.

How do the Republicans plan paying for massive increases in defense spending?

By the time the election rolls around, Obamacare will have self-destructed and they can use that money to rebuild the military.

 

[NYcarbineer]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

Except for the fact that she hasn't mentioned cutting anything at all, only increase taxes which is the usual Democrat solution.

How do the Republicans plan paying for massive increases in defense spending?

By the time the election rolls around, Obamacare will have self-destructed and they can use that money to rebuild the military.

Do you need me to repeat the question?

 

[the_human_being]

For you Liberals' digestion since it is apparent you have absolutely zero idea concerning your own leading candidate's proposals perhaps this will serve to make you a little bit more of an informed voter.

Hillary’s tax proposals: Disastrous for the economy

Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan--A Detailed Analysis

Clinton: My Agenda Will Cost Us $1 Trillion In New Spending

Hillary Clinton Policy Proposals Total $1 Trillion in New Government Spending

GOP Attacks Hillary Clinton’s Spending Plans

How many jobs would Hillary Clinton’s minimum wage proposal actually cost?

NEW INFOGRAPHIC: Clinton Proposes $1 Trillion In New Spending - America Rising

A hundred billion a year over ten years? How much of that is for spending that the GOP will support?

$2.92

 

[the_human_being]

$2T increase over what time-frame?

I haven't seen a link on the 2 trillion from the op, but projected budgets usually are for a 10 year period, so $200 billion a year....

Cutting the waste in the defense dept along with killing the same tax loopholes that Trump has planned for corps moving abroad etc, could easily achieve the $200 B.

Except for the fact that she hasn't mentioned cutting anything at all, only increase taxes which is the usual Democrat solution.

How do the Republicans plan paying for massive increases in defense spending?

By the time the election rolls around, Obamacare will have self-destructed and they can use that money to rebuild the military.

Do you need me to repeat the question?

Only if you want me to answer you again. Are you daft? Yes, you are. You're a Liberal.

 

[bripat9643]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

Actually, the two things are virtually identical. You will all dutifully line up and vote for the Hildabeast at election time.

 

[bripat9643]

Yanno if you sit down and squint, and hold your breath, and grunt really hard, you might be able to get a brain cell to kick into action and figure out that "Liberal" is not necessarily the same thing as "Hillary Clinton supporter". I know blanket statements are just so much easier because they involve no brain sweat but .... just a thought.

The ignorant OP'er ask me the same stupid question, and I have pointed out countless of time I am not supporting Hillary Clinton and I am voting third party if Trump or Cruz are the GOP candidate, and yet to the OP'er claim I am a Liberal supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I swear some of Trump supporters are living proof that they can be dumber than a Albino Chimp with down syndrome!

Judging by the avatar the poster may not have been born yet, so that would explain the limited intellect.
It's rampant on this board, this binary thinking that sees only two possibilities and if you're not in "my" camp, then you must be in the only other one I can see. Then they want to blame everybody else for the fact that they're not bothering to look any deeper than their own tiny little vision.

Please post the issues where your view differs from the liberal view.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Kosh]

TY, loudmouth chickenhawk ignoramuses. lol.

Yes Al Sharpton is one of those that you believe without question or hesitation..

or maybe it is Chris Mathews and his tinkle you like..

You seem to think pundits are politics, Rush WHATEVER. Typical dupe.

Says the racist far left drone dupe hater!

 

[Meathead]

I had nothing at all to do with Pogo being born Black and a racist.

Neither did Pogo, but that is nature of what is "racism" today. It is not what you are, rather, it is how they choose to define you.

That is what the Trump revolt is about.

Actually, I could care less about racism or Pogo.

It's kind of amusing what happens when the intellectually shortchanged inevitably come up short of mental change. I've had my gender bent, my religion chosen for me, my name entered into a political party, my nationality emigrated, and now my race misplaced -- all by asshats who can't deal with the point in front of them.*

Binary thinkers --- if what they see is not one of the "either/or" to which they enslave themselves, then it's necessary to change the nature of the other party; there's no way the flaw could be the tiny little box into which they've sealed themselves while warning the world, "I'M NOT COMING OUT".

SMH


*EDIT - I see Henry's here so I should add "my employment history invented" to that list...

If some think you're black, it is the content of your posts. Get a job and stop mooching off the rest of us. You'll feel better about yourself, I promise.

I promise you there is nothing in the Czech Republic I "mooch" from. I do have a 90-year-old violin made in what it calls "Czecho-Slovakia", but I paid for it in full.

Mooching is not by country, it ts rather by sucking off our own in a parasitic way, You may mooch of the Czech Republic or not. Your parasitism is your own affair.